Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Super Bowl XLVI: Eli Manning And The Meaning Of 'Elite'

fantasy baseball

here are some good things jason isringhausen has done :

  • he converted 17 of 19 save opportunities in april and may this season
  • he went more than a month without being scored upon --- july 4 through august 5, a span of 14 appearances / 14 innings
  • in his 1st four years with st louis (2002-05), he converted 140 of 159 save opps --- 88 percent
  • he has a postseason save-conversion rate of 89 percent for st louis (8 for 9) and a postseason era of 2.78
an 88 percent conversion rate over 4 years; let's not overlook that. let's not just take it for granted. over the same 4 years, mariano rivera's conversion rate was 90 percent; he blew 18 saves, just one fewer than izzy. billy wagner converted 90 pct of his saves; trevor hoffman, 92 percent; john smoltz, also 92 pct; billy wagner, 90. izzy was just a whisker less reliable than those guys --- and at least as reliable as other contenders' closers, such as troy percival (88 pct conversion rate), eddie guardado (86 pct), ugie urbina (86 pct), braden looper (82 pct), keith foulke (84 pct), and armando benitez (88 pct). in any given year, jason ranks in the upper third of big-league closers --- solidly above average, if not quite dominating. the last four series-winning teams have used percival, urbina, foulke, and jenks as their closers; isringhausen's at least as reliable as all four of those guys. that's not an opinion; it's a statistical fact.

i'll also mention that the only time in this century that st louis missed the playoffs, isringhausen's 6-week absence constituted one of the main reasons they came up short.

so when we contemplate using somebody other than jason isringhausen to close games for st louis, we have to realize that the new guy -- no matter who it is -- will probably fail to live up to the standards izzy has set. unfortunately, this year izzy himself has fallen so far short of those standards that we have to have the discussion. we're no longer talking about a couple of isolated downturns -- a bad week to open the season, a rough patch in june. now we're talking about a season-long pattern of recurrent ineffectiveness. if it wasn't apparent before, it's apparent now: the status quo is unacceptable.

yesterday he looked beaten after two hitters --- and he got the 2d one out. his pitches were not even close to molina's target; as the inning wore on, it looked as though he didn't want to throw another pitch. he had the bearing of a knight holding a plastic sword, waiting in dread for the dragon. joe strauss intimates this morning that izzy's bum hip is acting up; that would explain everything we saw yesterday, from the lifeless pitches to the standstill pace to the helpless demeanor. it also might explain the stark hot-cold periods in isringhausen's season, as captured in his month-by-month era's: 6.00, 0.77, 5.25, 0.69, 5.06. he has pitched extremely well for long stretches this year; we might now ask if those stretches correspond to periods of treatment for an ailment. and whether or not that is true, we certainly ask the following question in the wake of yesterday's game:

if he was functioning at that much less than 100 percent, why did la duncan leave him out there?

part of the answer is that, officially, izzy is not hurt at all; of course not. he's fine, and to hell with you for making insinuations when it's none of your damn business. per this regime's abhorrent custom, the manager and pitching coach and player are all pretending he's physically sound and simply needs to "fix his mechanics." after the disgraceful episode with mulder this year (of which, more in a second), you'd think they would be embarrassed to trot out that same bullshit; they must think we are idiots. whatever; we can readily enough supply the answer to our own question.

Q: is he hurt?
A: yeah, his hip's acting up on him again. but we think we can keep him patched together through the end of the season. if we shut him down now he'll be lost for the playoffs, so this is the way we gotta go. no choice, really.
fine --- that's a legitimate option (although not the only one), and we should all hope it succeeds. given izzy's long record of success as a closer, his long stretches of success during the 2006 season, and the lack of a clearly reliable alternative, i can understand why the team still isn't ready to take the drastic step of moving him out of the closer's role. but if la dunc are going to keep sending him out there in save situations, they have to learn from experience and be prepared for breakdowns -- have another pitcher ready every time izzy takes the hill. if he's laboring, and his hip -- er, mechanics -- won't cooperate, get him out of there immediately and call in the understudy. don't just sit there and lose the game. if necessary, carry 12 relief pitchers for the rest of the regular season. carry 8 relievers on the playoff roster. whatever it takes. just stop asking the players to do what their bodies won't allow. it's costing the team wins.

izzy, by the way, is now down to 50 percent in terms of protecting 1-run leads. he's come on 14 times with the cards leading by 1; he's only held the lead 7 times. in 3 of the 7 instances where he blew the lead, the cardinals still managed to win, so they went 10-4 in those 14 games. but a team with a 1-run lead heading into the 9th has a win expectancy of about 85 percent, so the cards "should" have had an .850 winning pct --- ie, a 12-2 record --- in those games. right there, izzy cost the team two games in the standings in 2006.

and he cost 'em another two games trying to protect 2-run leads. jason converted 10 of 13 save opportunities with a 2-run lead; the cards went 0-3 when he blew the save. teams with 2-run leads heading into the 9th should win about 93 percent of the time, so st louis should have gone 12-1, not 10-3, in that parcel of contests. izzy does have a perfect record when defending leads of 3 runs or more (15 for 15), but that's not much of an achievement; teams leading by 3 heading into the 9th have a win probability of 98 percent, which means even an average pitcher should go 15 for 15 in those situations. jason hasn't added any marginal value in converting those 15 saves.

so if we sum it all up, those 10 blown saves translate into 4 lost games in the standings. they're gone; let 'em go. i'm not convinced the cardinals would have done better with wainwright in the role, and they surely would have fared no better with looper. but both of those players -- and hancock, flores, sosa, maybe even kinney -- will have to be on call from now on in 9th-inning situations, just in case iz'hausen can't perform. the cards can't afford to piss away any more games like yesterday's, and they certainly can't afford to lose any such in the postseason. they need to establish a reliable method for closing out games, using all the personnel at hand --- a quasi bullpen by committee, in which isringhausen remains the first, but not necessarily the last, option.

now, back to mulder. by now you've heard that his rotator cuff is shot, and he's gonna have surgery to repair it. you might not have seen the graphic footage of mulder's trashed mechanics that an enterprising soul named carlos gomez synched up. highly recommended. (thank you to taiko for posting the link.) gomez isn't the only amateur who spotted the lost  arm velocity and other markers that are illustrated here --- so why couldn't the paid decision-makers see the same things? or did they see them but decide to pretend they didn't exist?

i'd love to see something similar vis-vis is'hausen. i'm not the guy to do it --- i have neither the technical expertise to synch up the footage, nor the perception to identify the important mechanical issues. but if such an exercise were even half as illustrative as this 30-second primer on mark mulder's motion, it might help us all understand what we've been watching in the 9th this summer.

Comment 125 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Now that was cool...
Very sad for Mark of course, but very cool the way Mr. Gomez put that all together. Especially if you're like me and don't know all that much about mechanics. It is amazing how much his delivery has changed...
"Do you find me sadistic?"

by iron duke75 on Sep 7, 2006 9:45 AM EDT reply actions  

I'm disgusted...
with the management of this team, after reading this. (By management, i mean La Duncan, not Dewitt for once)
That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 7, 2006 9:47 AM EDT reply actions  

of course
This is just one guys opinion and I think Lboros would agree with that.

Im not certain we know more than Tony and Duncan but maybe so.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

agreed, it's just an opinion
but it's supported by facts. you can agree or disagree with the opinion --- but if you disagree and have an alternative opinion, let us hear the facts that support it.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

i just
get a little bummed to see phrases like La Duncan, etc. The constant little jabs and semi name calling. We should all be above that.

As a fan I dont have this sense of entitlement that Tony, Walt, etc. have to fill me in on every intricate detail of whats going on. Maybe some do.

If Izzy was hurt enough to not pitch, he wouldnt have pitched. I truly believe this. Often times its up to the player to inform the coaches how he feels.

I know you think Tony controls everything but he isnt inside each guys body. If Tony says, "Hey Izzy, how ya feelin? Can you go today?" and Izzy says, "Yeah, Skip, I'm good." What is Tony supposed to do? Do an MRI on the spot?

Has Izzy been bad this year? Yes. Has he been inconsistent? Yes. But there is zero evidence to support that this team would be better without him as the closer.

As I mention in another post...this teams overall talent isnt very good and this gets magnified in these type of situations.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

i'm not arguing
that he should have been removed as closer before now. i argue the exact opposite --- that until now, he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

i don't think tony / dave control every little thing. but i hold them responsible for making accurate perceptions, and acting on those perceptions. if all it took to manage effectively was to listen to players' statements --- "i'm fine skip, i can go, put me in coach" --- then you or i could do the job. tony / dave are supposed to exercise independent judgment.

to me, it sounds like they've passed the buck all season. when one of these decisions fails to work out, they shrug and say: "the player told us he could go," or "the medical staff said he was fine," etc etc. their job is not to rubber stamp the information they receive; they're supposed to synthesize the info and exercise their own judgments.

if they decisions have failed, they are responsible.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

agreed
That if the players fail they are ultimately responsible. However, I just dont think this team is that good. Im not sure what else can be done about that.

I dont see them passing the buck but thats just a difference in opinion. If cant trust veteran guys like Izzy, Mulder, and Edmonds to give you an HONEST evaluation of their health, then how else are you supposed to get it?

I think Tony allows for some personal accountability with his teams--maybe it isnt working this year.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

you know,
if Marquis were out of the rotation, I could agree with you.  But Jason's performance has just been so poor this year, that I can't see how anyone could justify not trying another of the options availible to the team.  That is a mangerial decision that negatively impacts the team, and has almost no justification anymore.

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2006 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

again --- if the manager's
response is simply to shrug and say "the team's not very good, i don't know what can be done about that," he's not doing his job.

the manager gets paid to figure out "what can be done about that." he gets paid to solve problems. any good cardinal fan could simply stick with the status quo.

re player health: the player's self-evaluation is one piece of information. but there are other sources of information, including personal observation. there were dozens of fans back in may who posted on various internet boards, "mulder's pitching hurt" --- they could make that judgment based on mulder's mechanics, arm speed, etc., and the resulting ineffectiveness of his pitches.

if the fans could see it, so could the coaches --- and they should have trusted their perceptions and acted on them, rather than deferring to the player.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think there is more to it..
... in mulder's circumstance.  He got caught in the walk year problem.  He had to pitch for a contract and management had nothing to lose (except a few games) if his arm fell off.  It is a little cynical to thinl like this, but a lot of his problems come down to the money.

by BigJawnMize on Sep 7, 2006 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

i didnt
say the manager should say "this teams not very good" and shrug. I think Tony SAW this team wasn't very good but saw his options as hoping/thinking his proven guys could rebound (Mulder, Izzy, Edmonds, etc.) To me, that IS doing something.

Again, these are trusted veteran guys. They know their bodies better than anyone else. Im big on this. Now, if there is a communication problem as someone suggested then that needs to be addressed.

I dont think Tony stuck with status quo for the sake of doing it. I just think he thought that was the best option to win games.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

you may be right
he might have had his reasons. but if the decisions yield bad results, then --- no matter what the rationale --- isn't he accountable for his decisions?

he sent mulder out there on at least 4 occasions when he gave the team no chance to win. if tony had made better decisions, maybe the team wins a couple of those games.

if he'd put wainwright into the rotation from day 1, or handled anthony reyes differently, maybe that's another couple of games in the standings. again, we'll never know.

if he had simply shortened his leash on izzy yesterday, and managed that situation more effectively, maybe that outcome would be different.

just because tony thinks he's choosing the best option doesn't make it so. he's a great manager with a long record of success, but he is fallible. and i don't think this season will go down as one of his more distinguished managerial jobs.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

agreed
I do think he is accountable for his decisions. No doubt. I also agree that his option doesnt turn out to be the right one.

Here is where I give Tony credit (95% of the time at least). I dont always agree with the decisions he makes. However, when asked to explain them he usually has an answer that has been well thought out, uses baseball logic, and makes some sense. Its not always right and I dont always agree, but I can usually see his side of things. I do truly believe he cares about winning far more than any of us do and he thinks he is doing what is right for the team to win games.

That is why I get frustrated with the personal attacks and name calling.

I guess there are more than one way to skin a cat. Sometimes it works, sometimes you are left with a few patches of hair hangin on.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

what personal attacks
and what name calling? do you mean "la duncan" ?? come now -- do you find that insulting?

if i argue that tony has made some faulty judgments this year, and back that up with some evidence, how does that constitute a "personal" attack?

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

it doesnt
and Im not just referencing you on this one. Its like because I dont rip Tony I get called an "apologist"...its not all black and white ya know?
SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

i never labelled you
anything. but i still want to know, specifically, what attacks have been made that bothered you, whether by me or by someone in the comments thread.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Course of action that will never happen
It's September so there's no need to DL Izzy, but you could sit him for 10 to 14 days to rest the hip and then ramp up to October.  Give Looper first shot, with Wainwright going on the days when Looper needs an off day following a long appearance or consecutive appearances.  Clearly, Looper's signing was made with one eye on 2008 as your closer, and as a backup plan in the interim.  Heck, there's several guys in the bullpen who could save games at a 75% clip.  Stop demoralizing the team, and give Izzy a chance to get as close to 100% as possible.  The light is red, Tony.  STOP.    

2006 has got to be LaRussa's most puzzling performance as a manager in The StL, and possibly Jocketty's most disappointing.      

youneverknow

by meat on Sep 7, 2006 9:56 AM EDT reply actions  

Looper as insurance policy?
Just because Looper closed in New York doesn't necessarily mean that the club signed him to close for us - this year or any other. I know team management was quoted as touting his experience in the closer role, good insurance, yadah yadah... but look at his actual usage this season: out of 60 apperances, only 14 successful "holds" of a lead. In the last month, he has only 1 Hold in 12 2/3 innings of work.

The reason his win total is so high is that he is the primary go-to-guy when the team is losing, and he's been lucky enough to  be the pitcher of record when our lineup turns over. After April in particular, it appears that this became his "role" in the bullpen.

by taiko on Sep 7, 2006 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not arguing
that his win total or his holds qualify him as the guy to man the job temporarily.  I am saying that since it is now clear that Izzy isn't physically sound, Looper (or Wainwright) gives us a better shot at closing out ballgames than today's version of Izzy.  

I do, however, think that Looper was signed with an eye on 2008, much like Juan was signed as an insurance policy against the departure/steep dropoff of Jim Ed in CF.    

youneverknow

by meat on Sep 7, 2006 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

You may be right
Rationally, I just have a hard time accepting it. I am not complaining about Looper's usage... when I heard he was signed to replace King/Tavares, I feared he would be getting all the high-leverage innings, and that HE and not Izzy would be the goat of the bullpen this season. After all, his performance in NY was bad... worse than Izzy's this year.

His contract calls for him to make $5.5 mil in 2008, which is closer money. It's almost as though Jocketty is compelled to pay millions of dollars for the ninth-inning man, no matter who it is.

by taiko on Sep 7, 2006 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

There is a problem
with your statistics. You stated the holds, comparing them to his innings pitched, like they went hand in hand. The holds really mark how La Russa has worked him into games, not his effectiveness.

To check that, compare his holds to his blown saves: 14 holds, one (1) blown save.

Then again, you might look at that stat with trepidation, considering Randy Flores has 17 holds with no blown saves.

But Looper has been rather effective, the perfect guy to work when the score is tied or one run behind. The guy that does that is nearly as important as the closer. Think of it that way.

by Solanus on Sep 7, 2006 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, you got my point exactly
Looper's been effective, but he's been used primarily in low-leverage situations. I'd say out of all our relievers, he's the one least called upon in a tight spot, but I don't have hard evidence of that. However, the Holds stat I cited points to the general trend.

The art of closing isn't just getting three outs, its having the ability of arm and mind to get the three highest-leverage outs of the game, with no safety net. I have grave doubts about Looper in that role, and seeing how sheltered he's been on this team, perhaps TLR and Duncan do too.

by taiko on Sep 7, 2006 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

La Russa
Has been rather Belichick-ian this year in handling the injuries of Mulder, Jimmy, and now Izzy. Except, rather than holding off on revealing injuries to out-maneuver the opposing coaches in an act of gamesmanship, he's playing his guys while they are really, really hurt; to the detriment of the team and the players (Okay, so maybe it's not Belichick-ian... it's more Little-ian or even Baker-ian).

All three of those guys may never be the players they once were because of this mismanagement. Knowing as much as I do about TLR (which is next to nothing, really) he is probably more upset about this than we/they are.

It's weird... I can't put my finger on it... but something odd is going on around here. Something... odd.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Sep 7, 2006 10:02 AM EDT reply actions  

see
This kind of stuff happens when your talent isnt that good...this kind of discussion happens when the talent isnt ver good...there are more and more theories and ridicule when the talent isnt very good.

To me the MAIN difference between this year and others...umm, the talent isnt as good???? I know Im completely simplifying it but to me, its all about how good your players are.

The 25 on the Redbird Roster equal a slightly above average group. That about sums it up. I honestly doubt that changing closers, changing the batting order, starting this guy over that one, and all the other stuff that has been talked about would amount to much.

A game or two--maybe. But it all comes down the players and their abilities. Im not putting down the theories here or the discussion. Thats what fans do. But I've been around sports long enough to know that its pretty much all about talent.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Right
The Cards are nowhere as talented in 2006 as they were in '04 or '05. That '04 lineup is one of the best we will ever see... It amazes me how far and how fast the Cardinals have fallen from '04. But that is not the issue at hand.

What I'm wondering about is why Mulder, Edmonds, Eck, and now Izzy have all been marched out there when they have career threatening injuries. There's a breakdown in communication going on somewhere within the organization, somewhere between the players, docs, managers, and the front office.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Sep 7, 2006 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

umm
When were Edmonds, Eck, and Izzy marched out there with "career threatening" injuries??

Again, when it comes to the post concussion stuff the staff and coaches can only go on what the players say. That stuff is next to impossible to diagnose without honest input from the injured guys.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well
Edomnds played w/ post-concussion syndrome

Eckstein played way too much after his concussion.

W/ Izzy, we'll have to wait and see how his hip is, but after the Mulder treatment, I don't have a hell of a lot of faith.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Sep 7, 2006 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

my point
is--the post concussion sydrome stuff is almost impossible to detect unless the player tells you he has symptoms. Now, if Eck and Edmonds said they had these strong symptoms and then still played, then thats neglect.

I just dont think that happened. On something like that the player just has to be honest.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

And
you're right about the honest input from the players... that's why I said there seems to be a breakdown in communication between the whole machine. I don't know if it's a trust issue or what, but it seems fairly obvious that people are not communicating.
Cheers

by Alxfritz on Sep 7, 2006 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

agreed
SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

The catch here
is that players in every sport have a certain amount of ego involved in the disclosure of an injury.

First of all, they generally have a high opinion of themselves, thinking that they can play through the pain and still be effective. I'm not faulting them for that; that is part of what makes them world-class athletes. But there is a point at which courage transcends into recklesness.

Second, they don't want to come off as someone who won't play through pain. The comments about Just Disabled Drew are well known and no player wants to be thought of that way, regardless of the inherent benefit, both to the team and the player.

As was pointed out earlier, Tony and his coaches need to take the word of his players with just a touch of salt. Their self-prognosis should be weighted alongside coaches' observations and simple production.

If any player is having a hard time of it (injury or not), you give him the occassional day off, check to see if rest or a reduced responsibility has an effect on his performance. And it is certainly beneficial to see how other players on the team respond to the adjusted role, if even for a short while. (And we know Tony is all about giving bench players spot starts to keep them fresh. No problem with that.)

With all of the combined knowledge of his coaching staff (and observations of other baseball people within the organization), there is no reason for some of the problems this year to have gone as long as they have. If nothing else, try to foster a discreet, confidential method of letting the coaches know that the player is hurt, without fear of being ostracized by the other players or the coaching staff.

by Solanus on Sep 7, 2006 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Dusty Baker
has taken a lot of heat for "abusing" Prior and Wood by overuse.  But at least Dusty stops using his guys once they are hurt.  

LaDuncan have a history in recent years of running not-quite-right guys into the ground (and the OR).  This is Izzy's second go-round (if he is in fact injured).  Matt Morris was thrown out there every fifth day in 2004 despite the need for surgery.  Mulder, of course.  And Scott Rolen, 2005, to boot.  Early in Pujols' career (when he was still playing LF) they contiued to play him every day despite an elbow condition that limited his throwing--they got very, very lucky that he managed to heal despite playing and didn't ruin his career before it got started.

The weird thing, to me, is that Tony seems to genuinely care for his players.  So why does he abuse them so?

by blove121 on Sep 7, 2006 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

These questions seem
right on, and they make me think of those scenes in 3 Nights in August where Tony sits over his post-game meal, calls the trainer, etc., and tries to figure out a way to keep Pujols in the line-up despite the elbow problem.  Perhaps he sees such things a little too much in terms of figuring out some ingenious scheme for keeping hurt players out there -- i.e., how can I make their 'gamer' natures merge with my touted smarts and make it work?  Cross-reference here the 'scheme' of giving McGwire one AB in the first inning of road games then pulling him because he couldn't play the field (in which exact season I forget).  People (including Bissinger in 3 Nights) make much of the Ankiel experience making Tony gun-shy about rookie use, etc.  Could it be his success with the Pujols situation (in which, as blove points out above, they got very, very lucky) likewise means, in sort of the opposite direction, that he is more willing to gamble with (semi-)injured players?  And so he sends Mulder, Izzy, etc. out there, even though here there's no ingenious solution like having Pujols toss it to another outfielder rather than making long throws.

I'm not saying it's logical.  But these seem like they could be factors (in addition to the macho stuff, the Drew-bashing, etc. people note below) in TLR's psychology.

by jfs on Sep 7, 2006 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

come on now
The macho stuff and Drew bashing is coming out of left field.

I dont think "macho" is a word that comes to mind when describing Tony LaRussa. Should he not be confident?

Its amazing how labels stick if enough people talk about it. I dont think Tony "bashed" JD.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Tony and JD
It is clear, from Three Nights in August, and other sources, that Tony had little use for Drew.  He often described his injuries in disparaging terms, such as being "achy," and averred that Drew had "too much talent." He all but called Drew a pussy.  In contrast, here's what Tony says about himself:

"That's the only place I give myself any slack," says La Russa of his playing career. "I didn't give in to the injuries and the pain. I had guts, and I wasn't going to just give up or disappear."

That is revealing.

by blove121 on Sep 7, 2006 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

wow
Talk about trying to connect the dots with curvy lines that take many a detour.

Is "achy" a disparaging term? Is saying "too much talent" disparaging?

Even IF Tony thought JD was a pussy (which is quite a leap you take there) isn't that what 98% of Cardinal fans felt? So its ok for you to say but not OK for Tony??

Ok, so Tony said he had guts as a player. I think basically every major leaguer of all time would say the same thing about themselves. Is this newsworthy or noteworthy?

Again, I love when people take a comment or two and then make grand leaps of faith to put someone down. Nice.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Tony's disparaging comments.
I've had the feeling that Tony has made disparaging comments about Edmonds this year.  He's said things like, "If Jimmy is interested in a contract extension, he needs to show us he's a 10 million dollar player."  This, while Edmonds is hurt.  That seems like a piss-poor way to "manage" your players.  If you have a problem with your players, you talk to them about it in a closed-door meeting--you don't call them out in the newspaper.  

Look, I really like LaRussa.  I think he's an excellent manager.  But he's pulled the same crap with Edmonds, Drew, Marquis, Lankford, Ozzie, Gant, Tomko, Stephenson, and several others I can't remember right now.  I know all managers have their weaknesses, but this one's easily correctable.

by Archaeopteryx on Sep 7, 2006 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

no offense
But 95% of the manager-player relationship/conversations are "off the record". I learned a LONG time ago to not look into what is said in the media as to how a relationship is with a coach/player.

I honestly put zero weight into that stuff.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

but that stuff
can be very revealing. tony is not a passive agent vis-vis the media; he is not at the mercy of the press. on the contrary, he uses the media to great effect. what appears in the media is often exactly what tony wants to appear there. in some cases, it's what the ballplayer (or his agent) wants to appear there.

you can hide your eyes from that stuff out if you want to, but it is far from meaningless.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

not hiding
it Lboros. Not at all. I understand the relationship between coaches/media, players/media and coaches v. players/media. But I still feel what is said in the clubhouse, on the buses and planes, and on the field and in the dugout trump any and everything said in the media.

Im not playing the Im big time card but I work in that world and I see it all the time. I've got a good grasp on it I think.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

It should be 100%.
It's absolutely unconscionable to "manage" your players in the press.  Can you imagine if your boss treated you that way?  Several players have complained that Tony would say things to the press that he wouldn't say to them one-on-one.  Ray Lankford springs immediately to mind.  Lankford was a life-long Cardinal (at the point where the problem was occurring) with a great track record.  He was having a poor year.  Tony was right to sit him.  But Lankford said--and he was exactly right--that he deserved to be communicated with.  Instead, Tony made comments to the press, and the end result was Lankford was shipped off, and his career was basically ended.  Of course those things may have happened anyway, but for someone who puts so much value on veteran presence, it seems to me that LaRussa would have thought Lankford could have been a valuable presence for the Cards, and, given time, may have regained some of his old form.  Had he communicated with him properly, surely Lankford would have been dissatisfied with his diminished playing time, but he most likely would not have felt disrespected, and wouldn't have become the apparent malcontent he became.

Again, I feel like LaRussa overall is a good manager, but it pains me to see him treat good (or not-so-good) players this way.

by Archaeopteryx on Sep 7, 2006 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

I love it when
in-the-tank apologists defend their stance by demanding unattainable, minute proof of contrary positions.  And I love it when said apologists deride any sort of logical inference as a "grand leap of faith."  I also love it when people change the subject to distract from flaws in their argument.

I don't KNOW that Tony hated JD Drew, or that he despises players who don't "play through pain" like he did.  I can't read his mind.  But I can certainly make the inference from "too much talent" to "not enough guts."  And I can make the inference that players like Izzy, who were around during the Drew years and saw how he was treated, might conclude that being a "gamer" in Tony's eyes is more important than actually being effective.

In your world, no one would ever be convicted of a crime without two eyewitnesses, DNA and a signed confession.  It's too much of a leap of faith to draw a conclusion from circumstantial evidence.

I don't think Tony is a terrible manager.  In fact, I think he has been a better manager during his tenure here than Whitey was during his (there, I said it).  But that doesn't mean he is above criticism.

by blove121 on Sep 7, 2006 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

who
Has said he is above criticism? Please find where I ever said that, one time.

But I dont take everything single rumor, inuendo, or supposed comment and blow it up the size of the Hindenberg.

Sorry, I try to judge people on my actual experiences not on a random sentence or quote every couple of months.

Does that make me naive? Maybe. But I think it makes me fair. I dont jump to conclusions at the first hint of controversy that people seem to get off on.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with most of what you say
Above, in regards to the front office and what they need to tell us.  Imho if it doesn't help the team, we don't need to know it, and it's obvious that the communication TLR has with his players is more than just what we hear from reporters.  Heck, 2/3 of what TLR tells reporters isn't even reported.  

But it is just silly to say that TLR did not have issues with Drew.  TLR devoted something like a hundred pages of "3 nights" to discussing how hard it was to motivate slackers like drew.  He called him lazy, unmotivated, "dimaggio potential" but no effort, etc.  There's no interpretation to be made; a big part of the story was the struggles a big league manager faces, and Drew was Problem #1.  IIRC he was pretty much called out as the "anti-pujols" or maybe pujols was the "anti-drew"; I can't remember.  

You either get all the glory or all the... goat hair. -mike shannon

by SleepyCA on Sep 7, 2006 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

ok
Regardless of whether or not I agree on the Tony hating JD thing. Let's take that out of the discussion.

Let's assume Tony did think JD was a pussy, lacked motivation, wouldn't play hurt, etc. Isnt this what 90% of Cardinal fans felt at that point in JD's career? Why is it ok for fans to say it but then call out Tony when he shares your same thoughts.

A buddy of mine has always made a great point regarding some Cardinal fans. One side can argue Tony screwed up point A. Another says he screwed up point B. But instead of arguing as to whether A or B should have been done, its all OK as long as its anti-Tony.

To me that makes no sense. Its not about supporting/backing an individual. Its about looking at each decision independently. I dont feel many people can do this.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

i agree with your perception
overall. but i don't see what the overall mediocrity of the roster has to do with isringhausen's performance. he has clearly fallen short of past performance --- you're not disagreeing with that --- and izzy's own comments in joe strauss's article strongly suggest that he is pitching hurt.

we already know tony and dave stuck with mulder when he was injured; it only stands to reason that they would do the same with izzy.

so i'm struggling with your response here. . . . . what exactly is the defense of tony / dave?

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

well
That they realize the team isnt very good--not much talent. As a result, trying some things they wouldn't ordinarily try to try and scratch out an extra victory or two. I think they are kinda dumbfounded as well but Tony knows this team isnt very good.

Honestly, Im not saying this has been their best year either but its hard to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Ive always felt a manager makes MAYBE a +/- 10 game difference each year anyway. I think Tony was trying to eek out the +10 and it may have turned into a -3 or so. But who knows.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

what's the point
of ecking out a couplea extra wins in an already sewn-up division if it costs (or even potentially costs) you your best players for the playoffs?  If that's what TLR and Duncan are doing, it's inherently irrational.

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2006 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

it wasnt
Sewn up as soon as a week ago.
SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yet
TLR keeps on trotting half of these guys out onto the field.

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2006 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

well
He thought they gave him the best chance to win and the guys more than likely told them they felt ok..plus these are veteran guys who know their bodies more than anyone else.

This idea that the Cardinals would be 25 games over .500 if not for this is ridiculous. This team is what it is...about a +10 over .500 squad.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think a managers two
main jobs are to 1) keep the team focused and driven throughout the season and 2) give the team its best possible chance of winning by putting the best players on the field.  

tony has done a great jo of those two things the past two years, obviously.  two 100 win seasons in a row takes luck, skill, and good managing.  however, this season, in my opinion, la russa has failed miserably at number 2.  its hard, if not impossible, to argue against the fact that larussa has put the best players on the field.  

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Sep 7, 2006 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think I know what you're getting at
If a team has a healthy lead this late in the season, the manager let's the injured players heal, knowing that the games don't matter as much.

If a team has a large deficit this late in the season, the manager let's the injured players heal, knowing that the games don't matter as much.

If a team is fighting for its playoff life, the manager expects the players to suck it up and play, regardless of the pain.

by Solanus on Sep 7, 2006 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

no
Where did I ever say they should "suck it up". I dont think Tony has ever insinuated that either.
SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

beano, to be perfectly honest
i don't know what you are saying, other than --- people should lay off la russa and stop examining his decisions.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

no
When did I say that?

What I'm saying is this...Tony is trying to win games. He did what HE felt was the right thing to win games.

Also, Tony knows this is a deeply flawed team. Not much talent. As a result, he has made decisions he normally wouldnt make to try and get a few victories. Did all of those work? No.

But I dont see this as being an ego thing, him lying to us fans, him thinking he's a genius, him only doing things because of his ego, etc.

I dont think that every suggestion made here is foolproof either. Just because a guy does something we don't agree with doesn't make it wrong.

There is a difference between examinging decisions and automatically thinking they are wrong because we don't like Tony.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

beano
quoting you:

"There is a difference between examining decisions and automatically thinking they are wrong because we don't like Tony."

have you never read praise for la russa on this site? have you missed the way i and many posters here routinely defend his much-criticized in-game tactical decisions? praised him for his leadership during pujols' injury? lauded him and dunc for constructing a good bullpen out of spare parts, year after year?

read this post. read the last paragraph here. read the first three paragraphs of this post.

that's off the top o me head. if i looked carefully, i could find a dozen other examples.

the intimation that criticism of la russa is fueled by personal animus is just flat-out wrong. i still don't know what your beef is.

i just have the impression that you consider any and all criticism of la russa to be unfair.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry, mis-spoke
What the players and managers expect of themselves and each other is to try to play through the pain, if you can. To try to help the team as much as possible. And that it seems odd that by not playing, they would actually be helping the team.

by Solanus on Sep 7, 2006 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

It seems very apparent
that Mulder has slimmed down significantly.  In watching that incredible video breakdown, he looks so much leaner.  Long, lanky pitchers have a tendency to move, reach, and look for leverage to create velocity.  Big strong guys with a powerful core (like Mulder '04) stay compact and drive toward the plate.  As much as anything, the shift appears to be a result of change in body size and strength.  Anyone know his actual or listed weights in '04 and '06?  Anything to this?  

by GoCrazyFolks on Sep 7, 2006 10:05 AM EDT reply actions  

In that case
Rest Izzy for a few days and hope that he gets better soon.  If the hip is hurting that badly, why is he listed as "available."

Of course, all this comes, one day after lots of people jump off the Izzy bandwagon.

In this case, I retract the DFA Izzy comment from yesterday

by cardsfan84 on Sep 7, 2006 10:34 AM EDT reply actions  

Not trying
to put a damper on things. But the Cards are a severely skewed team. Its really hard to figure they are 10 games over 500 - the pain of the Pirates' sweep stil lingers. Plus genuine contenders for CY/MVP on the other hand. I don't have a suggestion for the Izzy problem, but it is pretty obvious if this isn't resolved soon - then a first round blowout. Great site and great bloggers - see you for the first pitch...
The sun don't shine on the same dog's ass all the time. - Catfish Hunter

by klcard on Sep 7, 2006 10:38 AM EDT reply actions  

Great analysis
of the Izzy situation, LB. I'll be turning my anger to LaDunc from now on instead of Izzy. He's obviously doing what he's expected and told to do, a "gamer" aspect of his personality I've always liked. But whatever is wrong this year aint going away and can't be played through. It's LaDunc who is the culprit here--the stubborn inflexibility to attempt other options in the face of certain disaster. If they're making him throw on a bad hip they deserve our scorn, not the guy they're throwing under the bus in front of thousands of fans.

by rockin redbird on Sep 7, 2006 10:41 AM EDT reply actions  

I made mention yesterday
about the possibility of a "Cone of Silence" surrounding certain players on this team, and the mystifying decisions by the PTB and/or the medical staff seem to lend credence to this. Why did it take two failed comeback attempts(Rolen in 2005, Mulder this year) to necessitate second opinions, for example? Why is Eck on the DL, but JEd is day-to-day? It's things like this that make me go "hmmmmm"....

by cardsrul on Sep 7, 2006 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

no need
To DL Jim Ed with the expanded rosters.
SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

Jason Marquis = Max Smart
"Would you believe...

my ERA is 5.75?"

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2006 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

I knew
someone would get my "Get Smart" reference...

by cardsrul on Sep 7, 2006 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree...
Though there's one problem Isringhausen brought on himself early on -- he said he doesn't mind walking people to get to what he feels is a better matchup.

I don't know that it matters now, but that was bad PR, so to speak.

by whopperman on Sep 7, 2006 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Alex Fritz is on to something
The communication is bad.  The players have to be honest with thier injury satus and pain.  There is a problem with the cardinals play-through-pain macho culture.  J D Drew was villified for his wimpy reputation. Does this have something to do with our players playing when they shouldn't?  If yes, then this is Larussa's fault.  He is in charge of the team.  The Communication is bad.  Larussa needs to tell them to leave thier ego at the door and tell him if they are hurt.

by Schnake on Sep 7, 2006 10:57 AM EDT reply actions  

It's not a Cardinals thing
If you follow other teams (I live in CHicagoland and follow both Cubs and Sox) the same type of crap, both ignoring pain and complaining about every little thing, happens.

by sdrone on Sep 7, 2006 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well
I hope these guys know that there is a difference between JD Drew taking a few weeks off with a tight hammy and Jimmy Baseball being taken off the field because he is seeing double and doesn't even know what inning it is.

And the gamer mentality is great; it is something that all great competitors simply must have. But when I was in the Marines I saw tons of guys keep on going when they shouldn't have. And after a while, we had to let them know that it was time to take it down a notch or two; to fight (in the case of the `Birds "play") smarter, not harder.

Cardinals fans want the players to play hard. But nobody wants to hear about Mulder pitching when his shoulder was nothing but a bag of sauerkraut, and nobody wants to see Jimmy to collapse in CF because he is suffering from a brain injury.

These guys (players, docs, front office, and coaches) need to start being a lot more honest with each other about their health for their own sake, and a lot more honest about their health with the public for accountability purposes.

There's a big difference, albeit one that sits on a very thin blade, between being a trooper and being a detriment to your team.

"You're only as strong as your weakest man."

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Sep 7, 2006 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

Metaphor
Rather than a thin blade, the better metaphor here is a thick fog. I'm not defending LaRussa here, as I think he's been unwilling to confront his veterans about health or performance ("LaRussa's so angry with Marquis that Reyes was demoted to A-ball!"). But I don't think player health is all that clear. Look at Albert over the last two weeks for an example. Everybody thinks his elbow is that bad, then he makes a correction with his feet and hits three homers. Heck, after watching the Carlos Gomez video, I suspect Mulder really doesn't need surgery, that it's just Mulder's attempt to tell GMs that his problem will be solved.

They've all got nagging injuries. Differentiating between the minor hickups and the major events is difficult enough for the player. Unless you're running your players through an MRI tube every week, it's even tougher for the coaches and training staff. There isn't always a banner flying overhead stating "This is serious and it will not get better soon."

by Rob H on Sep 7, 2006 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

but you put the medical information
together with other information you've gathered.
  • you know he's got some nagging health stuff -- he left the team for a doctor consult in early may, and although both he and the doc say he's good to go, at the very least you know you need to keep an eye on his health.
  • you know his velocity is down.
  • you know that numerous scouts have noticed a precipitous drop in his arm speed.
  • you can see from the dugout that his pitches have no life and are getting hammered.
  • you can read the stat sheets and see a precipitous drop in performance.

maybe that's not a banner flying overhead, but it's a whole lotta bunch of red flags --- and they were very plain to see. some managers would have read all of the available evidence and made a judgment call to shut the pitcher down.

la russa ignored all the evidence that didn't agree with what he wanted to hear. he heeded mulder's statements ("i'm fine") and the doc's statements ("based on the evidence we have so far, we can see nothing wrong with him"), while shutting his eyes to a whole lot of other freely available evidence.

i think that's why he made the wrong call.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

What if it's turning out
that Mulder is a head case like Marquis and agrees with everything Duncan et. all says, then goes out and just play doesn't do it?

by sdrone on Sep 7, 2006 11:00 AM EDT reply actions  

DFA
I know it is not officially a DFA, but Dimitri Young was released by the Tigers yesterday. Why don't we bring him back to St. Louis to fill in as a backup to Pujols and outfield. Hell we have so many not wanteds, why not another?
Play hard, play to win, but make it fun!

by Edmonds is baseball on Sep 7, 2006 11:50 AM EDT reply actions  

I'd read
that it was in relation to his earlier substance abuse problems.

But this article makes it sound like that wasn't the case.

by dontEATnachos on Sep 7, 2006 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

wouldn't do that much for us
we wouldn't be able to use him in the post-season if we added him now.

by tdawg on Sep 7, 2006 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

cards in general
After reading all the posts last night about Izzy, then reading that he may be hurt, I have to wonder why he was out there if he is hurt, unless he is just one of those gut it out kind of guys, which he does seem to be. This reminds me of Garrett Stephenson. Does anyone remember when he got hurt in the Atl series in 2000? He continued to attempt to pitch, until Will Clark noticed something, came to the mound and asked him a few questions at which point he got the trainer and staff out there, and Stephenson was out about a year. Why cant someone yesterday have noticed Izzy struggling so bad? Are the players that locked in that they didnt see it, or is no one going to step up like that with a guy like Izzy? Clark would have told a guy like Clemens 'hey you are hurt and not helping us', he would not have cared who the player was. Should one of the guys have said something? Or is the case of Izzy having been so bad at times this year that they didn't realize something was wrong, that it was just a normal day? Interested to hear others thoughts on this.

by bigcardsfan5 on Sep 7, 2006 12:22 PM EDT reply actions  

Is that a matter
Of having a stand-up leader willing to do the right thing? Or of having a brash, outspoken newcomer speaking out of turn, regardless of the reason? I'd like to think it was the first reason. And I think it is also the biggest thing missing from this year's club. Somebody like Tony Pena, who would walk up to the mound and slap his pitcher when he was screwing up. (He's probably the only one who could get away with it.)

Just as it is for some electronic parts, often the best way to fix it is to "apply mechanical agitation" - smack it!

by Solanus on Sep 7, 2006 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

clark
totally agree with ya that clark did the right thing there and that it was for the right reason, same as u thought. pena is another of those guys who would challenge the guy to either step it up, or if something was wrong get the hell off the field. another thing i should have added to the earlier post was that i am sure stephenson would have continued to pitch, because he wanted to be seen as tough, no matter how bad the results

by bigcardsfan5 on Sep 7, 2006 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

izzy
i am pretty neutral on izzy, i dont hate him, or love him. he always made me nervous how he went about saves(walking a lot of guys, pitching around guys, putting guys all over the bases) but until this year he always had above average success rate for a closer so it was forgivable.. now, well..

dont overlook WJ in all this..i remember cringing when we signed izzy to a contract extension awhile back and i found out how much he gets paid. 9millionish for a guy who might pitch 60 innings? a pitcher over 34, who has lost velocity, gets an extension that ludicrous? even without the contract including izzy, closers are a strange animal, only 2 have really had any longevity, hoffman and rivera. a closer can look unhittabkle for a couple years then fade to injury or mediocrity(gagne,lidge) it seems crazy to me to throw that much money at ANY closer not named hoffman ot rivera, i doubt i would pay that much for those either...to have almost 10% of your salary in one guy at the end of the bullpen just seems crazy to me.

it is just a bad contract from the start with izzy. he is almost forced to remain the closer cause he costs so much. we paid out the ass for an "above average" closer, but if we had some guy making league minimum performing "slightly above average" and spent that 8-9million somewhere else, would it essentially be a wash?

i guess i just have a different philosophy on closers than TLR..i do respect TLR's philosophy tho and i could be wrong, our bullpen sure has fallen apart when izzy has been out the last few years. also, there certainly is something intangible that goes along with being a closer. you need guts, and a short memory, and izzy has that.

you certainly cant just put anyone there..i seen a lot of support for wainwright, but i dont think you put a guy who will start next year in the back of the bullpen, unless they changed their minds and want him to become a reliever. its a different approach than starting, and making a guy a closer is kinda seperating from the starting pitcher mindset.

my backup plan would be looper, cause of his experience, and if both fail, maybe sosa/hancock or something. i wouldnt mess around too much with the younger guys like reyes/wainwright/thompson in the closer role cause we might break em. break sosa or let hancock do it, hancock is a veteran and it wont ruin him.

by 2ndprize on Sep 7, 2006 12:26 PM EDT reply actions  

it's easy to question
the contract now.  But IIRC it was a pretty good contract considering the closer market at the time, and considering the fact that the Cards lack of a go-to closer was hurting them.

by sdrone on Sep 7, 2006 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

3-run saves
Lboros's note on win-expectancy with a three-run lead (98%) leads me to ask: does anybody else think a save with a three-run lead is sort of a joke?  Will we ever see a change in this rule to just two runs or fewer, do people think?  It's kind of galling to see guys like Izzy trotted out there to 'protect' 6-3 leads essentially to pad out stats and make agents fatter and happier, when (as Bill James pointed out long ago) they're not being used in tie games or in innings earlier than the ninth.  Personally I think changing the rule to two runs could go a long way toward making closer numbers more accurately reflect value.  Because if, as lboros's post says, average pitchers will go 15 for 15 in such situations, why should 3-run saves be translating into dollars on the other end?

Would the player's association have anything to say about stat changes?  That, of course, would be a major sticking point; they'd never let it happen.

by jfs on Sep 7, 2006 12:47 PM EDT reply actions  

On a similar note
I was just looking for some details of the origination of the save rule and came across this article

It seems to suggest that Tony LaRussa is one of the primary architects of the Closer role.  So it seems natural that if he finds "his man" he's going to stick by him.

Now I'm interested in doing more research on the topic though to see what others baseball historians say about LaRussa's influence on the introduction of a Closer.

by dontEATnachos on Sep 7, 2006 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

supposedly
He was the guy really. So yes, he believes in it.
SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Since everyone who ever mentions
Dennis Eckersley talks about him establishing the modern closer, it would make some sense to also be talking about TLR in the context of the creation of closers.

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2006 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I understand that LaRussa
is given most of the credit for the "modern day" closer role.  He is credited with being the first manager to use his closer only in the 9th inning (except for extreme circumstances), thereby making the closer the ninth inning guy.

I remember watching Bruce Sutter in the early 80's pitching 2 and sometimes 3 innings, as did a lot of the closers back then.

by stlfaninpa on Sep 7, 2006 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks for that link,
dontEAT.  Interesting little piece, and it confirms my suspicion that the making of the save as stat has been a little haphazard.  Remember that part of Moneyball where Lewis takes apart the inventor of the box score and the hitter's line (avg., hr, rbi), then shows it to be the first step toward the kind of overvaluing of the wrong numbers against which Beane and company reacted?  Seems likely we'll see another Lewis doing the same to the willy-nilly history of the save in about 2012 or so, as the use of closers gets slowly transformed.

by jfs on Sep 7, 2006 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Mulder injury
Just to clear up a little bit of the complaints regarding the Mulder injury.  I am a former pitcher and I recently had surgery to repair a torn labrum and fraying around my rotator cuff and labrum.  The doctor's told me that fraying does not always require surgery but can cause what they call "impingement" which can affect how the arm moves. In general this fraying does not always cause problems and does not always accompany a tear.  Apparently the MRI on Mulder showed no tear in either the labrum or rotator cuff.  Everyone is giving TLR such a hard time about pitching Mulder but if the doctors said he was alright to pitch I don't see it as being his  fault.  He has to go with the information that he has.  

by eglasier on Sep 7, 2006 1:10 PM EDT reply actions  

Izzy Video
I can do a Izzy Video similiar to what they did on Scout.

I just need some help in doing it but have no clue on finding the video to work with.

by DimitroffVodka on Sep 7, 2006 1:17 PM EDT reply actions  

Bernie says:
"Izzy will likely be checked out by the docs today - possibly Arizona's team doctor. His degenerative hip condition prevents him from getting the proper lift and drive in his delivery - as I explained yesterday, only to get personally attacked for passing along the inside information.

La Russa will meet with Duncan at the ballpark today and they will discuss the situation - specifically, what next? They will consider Looper, Wainwright, Sosa or a committee approach.

Duncan was on with Cusumano this morning (KFNS) and relayed pretty much all of this during an interview."

Sounds like the wishes of most have been granted.  Chances are we will see some interesting ninth innings over the next few weeks.

by OCCardsFan on Sep 7, 2006 1:24 PM EDT reply actions  

Just say NO to Sosa
as closer.  He couldn't do it in Atlanta and he gives up homers at a faster pace than Izzy has this year.  Any consideration to him being a closer should have vanished after he gave up the HR to Ramon Ortiz at RFK on Monday!

by stlfaninpa on Sep 7, 2006 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

That is what we call progress
As slow as it may be.

Here was a CT poster's thumbnail of the Duncan KFNS 590 interview:

"Duncan is on now and has said that they are talking about moving izzy out of the closer role and going with Looper, Wainright or committee. He mentioned that AW has the pitches to get out both lefties and righties but that he had not had the experience. He said that Looper has a hard time getting out lefties. That makes him vunerable and Duncan mentioned that using Johnson or Flores in spots to end games against lefties.

He also said that if Reyes is not in the rotation then he would not be a bullpen guy for the playoffs."

youneverknow

by meat on Sep 7, 2006 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

this is a very rational
approach --- i'm a happy camper now.

huzzahs for dave and tony

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why not use Reyes in the pen?
He's probably the most reliable strikeout guy on the roster... Is he really so fragile?

by guayzimi on Sep 7, 2006 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think
you want Reyes in the bullpen.  If he's left alone and trusts his fastball against the change up, then he could be a second power arm in the rotation, next to Carpenter.

by BozCardsFanSF on Sep 7, 2006 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I mean
you want Reyes in the rotation.

duh, I want to edit my last comment so bad...

by BozCardsFanSF on Sep 7, 2006 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

as long
as Duncan doesnt screw with him and make him throw that two-seamer he should be great in the pen ;)
SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Sep 7, 2006 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

but
It doesn't really explain Dunc's statement that If he's not in the rotation, he's not going to be used in the bullpen.

That is, unless he's already decided that he's going to be in the postseason rotation.

Even then though, what sense does it make to say that he isn't possibly going to be in the bullpen? Is it to motivate him to pitch better down the stretch here or what?

by dontEATnachos on Sep 7, 2006 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Innings and usage
Reyes has already racked up a career high in IP and you would ask him to pile on frequent use, in a role to which he is unaccustomed, in cooler weather.  They have enough consistent RH relievers that they don't feel the upside of his arm in the bullie is worth taking the chance of messing him up.  And I agree.  Kinney, Wainwright, Hancock (who would have an awesome porn name if you replaced the "n" with an "m"), Sosa, Wainwright all have decent to good K rates.    

Besides, all he's got to do is be better than Marquis or Weaver down the stretch here, and my money is on Marquis.

 

youneverknow

by meat on Sep 7, 2006 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

To be clear...
my money is on Reyes (and Weaver) beating out Marquis.
youneverknow

by meat on Sep 7, 2006 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah
Why take unnecessary risks with one of our starting pitchers next year.  I'm cool with that.

Like you said below though, I'm hoping he gets a chance to pitch some in the postseason.

by dontEATnachos on Sep 7, 2006 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I've heard that Reyes takes a long time to warm up
Not a question of "stuff" or demeanor, but his ability to be ready to go on short notice, or to deal with getting "dry-humped" -- warming up quickly only to be sat back down, as Steve Kline so eloquently put it on the day he flew the bird at La Russa.

by taiko on Sep 7, 2006 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hungo
mentioned that same reason earlier in the year, after Dan had asked him about putting Reyes in the pen.

by cardsrul on Sep 7, 2006 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

If he's a closer
then there'd be no randomness to when he's going to pitch--get him up during the 8th, and let him throw the 9th--that's the one bullpen role where warming up slowly might not be a problem.

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2006 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

what Hungo was saying, IIRC
was that Reyes needs longer to warm up, even on days that he starts, because of his previous arm problems.

by cardsrul on Sep 7, 2006 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

I thought he said that Wainwright was the one
that needed the extra time, which is why sometimes it seems Tony waits 1 too many batters to bring him in.

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2006 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

If this is coming out
They've already decided to take Izzy out of the role.  Health issues just now coming out?  This organization is painfully good at keeping things under wraps until they need some PR cover to do something.

I'd give even odds we don't see Izzy again this year.

by Cardinal70 on Sep 7, 2006 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Just checking Fan Graphs
Izzy's WPA on the season after yesterday's game is now -.5  Time to get him out.

by jojo5492 on Sep 7, 2006 2:06 PM EDT reply actions  

Izzy is out...
From what Duncan was saying on the radio this morning, it sounds like Izzy is going to be sidelined with an injury. He says they are entertaining the ideas of Looper or Wainwright.
That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 7, 2006 2:47 PM EDT reply actions  

Yeah
This could be the best thing for the Cardinals right now. Maybe if Wainy or Looper does a good job while Izzy is out, it will put a spark under his butt or Larussa's and things will change. This could bring Izzy back to the dominance he once had or it could show Larussa that Izzy is not getting the job done and someone else can.... I just noticed as I am writing that the Cardinals have been full of maybes all season. Agree?
Play hard, play to win, but make it fun!

by Edmonds is baseball on Sep 7, 2006 2:59 PM EDT reply actions  

Smoke and mirrors..
That is how I look at the Cards this year...they are going to win the Central in all likelyhood, but can you honestly say that you feel this 06 squad is anywhere near the quality of the previous two years teams?  We have had monumental problems with the starting pitching, we have seen our offensive abilities become less than championship caliber also. Injuries out the wazoo.. This Cardinal ship might make it into the port called "The Playoffs"....but they are arriving bailing water like crazy.  But the beauty of the system is..once you get there it's back to square one, and if you can get on a bit of a steak you can win it all with less than the "Best" talent... BUT...you can't keep throwing out pitchers or players who have shown over a reasonable about of the regular season that they are not capable of adding value to the cause.  Izzy may have 30 whatever saves..but he also has 10 blown saves and 8 losses. Now is the time to see what ELSE you have in that pen that might ...and the key word there is MIGHT...be a better solution to the problem. THAT is all I've been asking of LaRussa and Duncan all summer. To try and use other players in certain situations where the others who you were choosing to play there were failing.  Explore other options than the ones that were not working.  Hey in a week or so...we might ALL be bemoaning the loss of Izzy...but then again...maybe someone will step it up and be the catilist to send this team into the playoffs with a real shot at winning it all.

by Timbo02 on Sep 7, 2006 3:45 PM EDT reply actions  

Hey Lboros check out....
My post at the Birdhouse.....too much info to duplicate here.  I did a lot of homework on who should be pitching the 9th between now and October...
http://mb9.scout.com/fstlouiscardinalsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=10707.topic
I probably think about this stuff too much......

by cardsnutincali on Sep 7, 2006 4:41 PM EDT reply actions  

Compare Izzy to the other closers...
Igonring the closers on teams like KC or Cubs...

just looking at the top half of the closers with the most save opportunities, here are the number of blown saves for those pitchers..

izzy: 10
The next 14 pitchers: 3,3,4,6,5,4,5,8,3,5,4,5,3,3

The management can no longer say that izzy is comparable to the rest of the league.  He's just not.   And for a team that wants to win the world series....

We put Izzy in the game the instant it is a save situation, which gives him the best chances of getting the save.   How many times has Izzy came in with the winning runner on 3rd, or even second... or heck even at the plate?  Never!

by redbird2006in on Sep 7, 2006 5:05 PM EDT reply actions  

VEB
is always good for valuable insight but I'm not sure any post can top today's.  Absolutely wonderful.  You're absolutely right about Izzy.  With all that's gone on this year, we can't forget about how reliable he's been and how we didn't make the playoffs 1 year b/c of his injury.  I can certainly understand how Tony/Duncan thought he would come out of his funk.  I did.  The Cards have depended on him as much as anyone probably outside of Pujols.  But he's clearly not the same pitcher this year as he's been in those years.  I'm not sure what the solution is as I don't know how bad the hip is or how to treat it, etc.

Great post!

by chuckb on Sep 7, 2006 5:29 PM EDT reply actions  

thanks h/c
imho, is'hausen has been taken for granted; i hope we don't suddenly discover, in his absence, how much we really needed him . . . .

by lboros on Sep 7, 2006 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Izzy
Izzy 2002-05 was a solid, but not superior, closer, and for several years we benefitted from stability in that role.  In fact, we felt smugly superior to several teams who couldn't seem to find a closer. Thanks for the good work, Izzy, and we hope you come back.

But that was then, and this is September 2006.  

Being brave enough to pitch when you can't throw strikes is like being brave enough to drive drunk. We appreciate the courage, but someone should take away his car keys.

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

nice
very good analogy, and with the guy who thinks he can drive drunk, it usually ends up bad

by bigcardsfan5 on Sep 7, 2006 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Granted, this list is the past, but....
All-Time Saves Percentages
Reliever    -      Save conversion %
  1. Trevor Hoffman 89.6%
  2. Mariano Rivera 88.2%
  3. Billy Wagner 86.4%
  4. Troy Percival 85.9%
  5. Robb Nen 85.3%
  6. Randy Myers 85.3%
  7. Jason Isringhausen 85.0%
  8. Tom Henke 85.0%
  9. Bryan Harvey 84.7%
  10. Dennis Eckersley 84.6%

by sdelek on Sep 8, 2006 3:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

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

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

649494__1__small
The Hall of WAR: Part 1

Recent FanPosts

St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Relief Pitching Edition
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Starting Pitching Edition
Small
Two Trades That Set the Cards Back in the 70s
Nyc_small
Cardinals Offense vs. Reds Offense - 2012
Nyc_small
Cardinals Rotation vs. Reds Rotation - 2012
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Center Fielders
649494__1__small
Hall of WAR: Part 2
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Corner Outfielders
Stl_gay_small
2011 League Minimum All Star Team
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Short Stops

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


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