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
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.
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.
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.
125 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Now that was cool...
I'm disgusted...
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 7, 2006 9:47 AM EDT reply actions
of course
Im not certain we know more than Tony and Duncan but maybe so.
agreed, it's just an opinion
i just
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.
i'm not arguing
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.
agreed
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.
you know,
again --- if the manager's
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.
I think there is more to it..
i didnt
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.
you may be right
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.
agreed
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.
what personal attacks
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?
it doesnt
i never labelled you
Course of action that will never happen
2006 has got to be LaRussa's most puzzling performance as a manager in The StL, and possibly Jocketty's most disappointing.
Looper as insurance policy?
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.
I'm not arguing
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.
You may be right
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.
There is a problem
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.
No, you got my point exactly
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.
La Russa
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.
see
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.
Right
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.
umm
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.
Well
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.
my point
I just dont think that happened. On something like that the player just has to be honest.
And
The catch here
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.
Dusty Baker
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?
These questions seem
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.
come on now
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.
Tony and JD
"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.
wow
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.
Tony's disparaging comments.
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
I honestly put zero weight into that stuff.
but that stuff
you can hide your eyes from that stuff out if you want to, but it is far from meaningless.
not hiding
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.
It should be 100%.
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
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.
who
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.
I agree with most of what you say
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.
ok
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.
i agree with your perception
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?
well
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.
what's the point
it wasnt
well
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.
I think a managers two
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 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.
no
beano, to be perfectly honest
no
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.
beano
"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.
Sorry, mis-spoke
It seems very apparent
by GoCrazyFolks on Sep 7, 2006 10:05 AM EDT reply actions
In that case
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
Not trying
Great analysis
I made mention yesterday
I agree...
I don't know that it matters now, but that was bad PR, so to speak.
Alex Fritz is on to something
It's not a Cardinals thing
Well
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."
Metaphor
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
- 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.
What if it's turning out
DFA
by Edmonds is baseball on Sep 7, 2006 11:50 AM EDT reply actions
I'd read
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
cards in general
Is that a matter
Just as it is for some electronic parts, often the best way to fix it is to "apply mechanical agitation" - smack it!
clark
izzy
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
3-run saves
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.
On a similar note
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
Since everyone who ever mentions
I understand that LaRussa
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.
Thanks for that link,
by jfs on Sep 7, 2006 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Mulder injury
Izzy Video
I just need some help in doing it but have no clue on finding the video to work with.
Bernie says:
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.
Just say NO to Sosa
That is what we call progress
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."
agreed
Why not use Reyes in the pen?
I think
by BozCardsFanSF on Sep 7, 2006 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I mean
duh, I want to edit my last comment so bad...
by BozCardsFanSF on Sep 7, 2006 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
but
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
Besides, all he's got to do is be better than Marquis or Weaver down the stretch here, and my money is on Marquis.
yeah
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
If he's a closer
what Hungo was saying, IIRC
I thought he said that Wainwright was the one
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2006 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
If this is coming out
I'd give even odds we don't see Izzy again this year.
Just checking Fan Graphs
by jojo5492 on Sep 7, 2006 2:06 PM EDT reply actions
Izzy is out...
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 7, 2006 2:47 PM EDT reply actions
Yeah
by Edmonds is baseball on Sep 7, 2006 2:59 PM EDT reply actions
Smoke and mirrors..
Hey Lboros check out....
http://mb9.scout.com/fstlouiscardinalsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=10707.topic
by cardsnutincali on Sep 7, 2006 4:41 PM EDT reply actions
Compare Izzy to the other closers...
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
Great post!
thanks h/c
Izzy
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.
Granted, this list is the past, but....
Reliever - Save conversion %
- Trevor Hoffman 89.6%
- Mariano Rivera 88.2%
- Billy Wagner 86.4%
- Troy Percival 85.9%
- Robb Nen 85.3%
- Randy Myers 85.3%
- Jason Isringhausen 85.0%
- Tom Henke 85.0%
- Bryan Harvey 84.7%
- Dennis Eckersley 84.6%


















