putting it into words

by lboros on Apr 5, 2007 8:25 AM EDT in News Comment 44 comments

at times like these, i often turn to the online etymology dictionary for guidance and comfort. here's what i find there this morning:

stink (v.): O.E. stincan "emit a smell of any kind" (class III strong verb; past tense stonc), from W.Gmc. *stenkwanan (cf. O.S. stincan, O.H.G. stinkan, Du. stinken), from the root of stench. O.E. swote stincan "to smell sweet," but offensive sense began O.E. and was primary by c.1250; smell now tends the same way. Fig. meaning "be offensive" is from 1225; meaning "be inept" is recorded from 1924.

and in 1924 the cardinals' record was . . . . . gulp --- 65-89. they finished 6th in the 8-team national league. no help there; let's try another one:

feeble (adj.): c.1175, from O.Fr. feible, by dissimilation from L. flebilis "lamentable," lit. "that is to be wept over," from flere "weep." The first -l- was dropped in O.Fr. by dissimilation.

which leads us to

lamentation (n.): 1375, from L. lamentationem (nom. lamentatio) "wailing, moaning, weeping," from lamentatus, pp. of lamentari, from lamentum "a wailing," from PIE base *la- "to shout, cry," probably ultimately imitative.

and

sob (v.): c.1200, probably of imitative origin, related to O.E. seofian "to lament," O.H.G. sufan "to draw breath," W.Fris. sobje "to suck." The noun is attested from c.1374.

and so, inevitably, we arrive at

suck (v.): O.E. sucan, from PIE root *sug-/*suk- of imitative origin (cf. O.S., O.H.G. sugan, O.N. suga, M.Du. sughen, Du. zuigen, Ger. saugen "to suck;" L. sugere "to suck," succus "juice, sap;" O.Ir. sugim, Welsh sugno "to suck"). Meaning "do fellatio" is first recorded 1928. Slang sense of "be contemptible" first attested 1971 (the underlying notion is of fellatio). Suck eggs is from 1906. Suck hind tit "be inferior" is Amer.Eng. slang first recorded 1940.

in 1940, i'd like to point out, the cardinals did not suck hind tit. the greatest team in franchise history was coming together; they finished 3d at 84-69, which over a 162-game schedule translates into 89-73. in 1928 they won their second nl pennant, and in 1971 they tied for the league's second-best record at 90-72. under the current playoff format, all 3 of those teams would have games scheduled in october.

ahhh, the wisdom in words. i feel much better now; you?

i actually do feel better, slightly, about carpenter's elbow. why, it's downright loose and limber. this joint may yet star in its own season-long drama, but for the moment it remains off-stage. stay right there.

interesting launch for the looper experiment. the mets, perhaps as curious as all the rest of us, took a good long look at him the first time through the order, taking a strike nearly as many times as they swung at one --- 10 takes, 12 swings. that's highly unusual. second time through, with the sense of sheer spectacle having abated, the mets became somewhat more active, taking only 7 strikes and swinging at 12; and by the third time around, they had him pretty well pegged --- only took 3 strikes and took a cut at 10. not coincidentally, they were 2 for 9 off him in each of the first two cycles, but 4 for 7 with a walk the final time through. so while it was, officially, a "quality" start --- and unofficially a pretty good one --- it tended to underscore the original doubts about this enterprise. one big question was does he have a broad enough repertoire to manage three trips through a batting order? by the 3d trip, as i've just suggested, the mets had begun to see ball hit ball, so it remains to be proven that loop can keep guys off-balance over 3 or 4 at-bats. the second major question was will he have the stamina? he was at 65 pitches as the 6th inning opened; i haven't looked at mlb.tv to see whether his velocity took a dip. this question, too, awaits its first affirmative evidence.

had the game not gotten so far out of hand, there might have been a lot of discussion about la russa's decision to stick with looper against two lefties --- shawn green and jose valentin --- in the 6th with two on, two out and the score still only 2-0, mets. looper has struggled vs lh batters his whole career; more to the point he was at 85 pitches, far and away his career high, and had retired only 1 of the previous 5 hitters, yielding two singles, a homer, and a walk within that span. the next 7 batters included 5 lefties, plus the pitcher.

tyler johnson, where art thou? (or should it be "wert thou?")

couple possibilities: one, if tony had gone to a lh reliever there, randolph could always have countered with a right-handed bat (franco or milledge) off the bench; maybe tony liked the looper-green matchup better than the putative johnson-milledge confrontation. a second possible consideration is that la russa was simply gathering information about his new starting pitcher. he'll do that sometimes early in a season --- challenge a guy, see how he reacts, find out how far a certain player can be trusted. at this particular point in the game, looper had retired 11 of 13 left-handed batters; perhaps tony wanted to see if he could ride him one more batter down the line.

i'd accept either of the foregoing explanations. if it were me i'dve gone to the bullpen, but (as is usually the case) there's more than one side to the argument. however, if the prime consideration was simply that looper was due to lead off the next inning --- well, that i wouldn't accept. that's a lousy reason. there's an off-day tomorrow, and none of the relievers had thrown more than a handful of pitches since sunday. if that's all you're worried about, pull the double switch and take the guy out.

in the end it mattered not; the cards were already down 2-0, and it might as well have been 20-0 for the way they're swinging that bats. i'd like to shrug it off as only 3 games, but the fact is that the bats have looked weak for more than a month. change is necessary. a final word from etymonline:

slump (v.): 1677, "fall or sink into a muddy place," probably from a Scand. source, cf. Norw. and Dan. slumpe "fall upon," Swed. slumpa; perhaps ultimately of imitative origin. The noun meaning "heavy decline in prices on the stock exchange" is from 1888; generalized to "sharp decline in trade or business," 1922.

and in 1922? the cardinals finished 3d at 85-69, which adjusts to 90-72 on a 162-game scale; led the league in slugging, and finished 2d in runs scored at 863 (or 908 runs / 162 games). rogers hornsby had 250 hits and 450 total bases that year, both still franchise standards; the latter figure remains the all-time national league record. hornsby's 1922 total of 206 runs created stood as a national league record for nearly 80 years; barry bonds broke it in 2001.

so hell, i'm not worried about the cardinals' offense. hornsby'll save them.

0 recs | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

excellent choice of words

Last night was the first game of the year for me and my friends; we hoped we were bringing some sort of karmic jumpstart with us, but the suckitude was just too strong. At least the game was close for five innings.

Interesting analysis of the Mets' approach to Looper. One thing that struck me was how easily they were able to lift the ball off him. For being a ground ball specialist, he wasn't able to get many ground balls last night at all. Another thing that struck me is that with the pratfalls in the long grass, Chris Duncan was our best outfielder last night. Not a good sign.

I think there are some interesting parallels between our team this year, and last year's Astros team - they had perhaps the best starting three in the game, but also had a losing record for most of the year, thanks to their inept hitting from the six spot down. Not much difference between our P-Dub, Molina, Miles, P and last year's P-Dub (As an Astro), Ausmus, Everett, P. I guess Kennedy is a mild upgrade, but not much of one.

by taiko on Apr 5, 2007 9:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pujols

Someone please let Pujols know that the Umpire is the one that calls balls and strikes.

You know I hate to say it but it looks like he's already on his way walking to first base before strike 3 even gets to the play.

by redbird2006in on Apr 5, 2007 9:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Cardinals Are Not THIS Bad

It would be one thing if Rolen and Pujols were hitting, but everyone else was not. But that's not what we have here. Everyone is stinking up the place. Which leads to the second most probable explanation:

The Mets are just that good. What if Glavine, El Duque, and Josh Maine are simply good pitchers on the cusp of having really good years? What if the Mets' steller defense makes good pitchers look even more stifling?

It'll take a few series to figure this out, but right now I'd give the credit to the Mets for making the Cards look a lot worse than they really are.

A great team will do that to you, and the Mets look like the class of the NL.

So says, The Dude

by Titus Pullo on Apr 5, 2007 9:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is exactly why I have respect for this blog

Because you guys do know baseball and will express it even if it means crediting the other team. The fact that no one has disagreed or insulted you for that post is interesting. B/C if that occured on most anyother team's blog, that poster would be lambasted by his fellow compatriates.

Are the Mets this good? No. They will not have another series this year where they give up 2 runs over 3 games. Their pitching is better than the clowns at ESPN let on, but certainly not this good. As for the offense, last night was very much a true representation. And frankly, the defense is a surprise to me.

Are the Cardinals this bad? No. They will not continue this pace to score ~120 runs this year. But, as stated yesterday, you do have some issues with talent beyond 1B and Mr. Carpenter. No way should Braden Looper and his 2-cent head be pitching in the rotation. He will always fall apart in the mid innings.

Chalk up this series beat down to emotion. Mets were focused and pissed off. And your celebration ceremonies throughout the series caused them to be more focused and pissed off. And focusing on what happened in 2006 perhaps caused your team to lose some focus.

History does seem to repeat itself...and this is perhaps reminiscent of late April 1986?

Take care, gentlemen. And please see to it that your team cleans up thier act. I want to kick your ass in October.

by Danny1986 on Apr 5, 2007 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah.

I remember when the Red Sox came to town in 2005. They looked horrible and the Cardinals looked great. I think a lot of that was the effect that you are talking about, only made more extreme by having it be the opener.

by Valatan on Apr 5, 2007 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Except for that beat down that David Wells put on the lineup. After a 2+ hour rain delay I got to witness 8 innings of shutout 4 hit ball thrown by the big boomer, oh boy.

PBR: When only the next best thing will do.

by sherwood on Apr 5, 2007 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ramblings

Is it just me, or does it look like any one of us on this board could hit Glavine better than the Cardinals? What is it about that straight mystery slowball on the outside half of the plate that constantly has them confused?

The Mets played great and the Cards played like an A ball team.

Why can't the Cards' outfielders see the ball, but the Mets' outfielders can see it so well that they are making spectacular catches all over the place?

I was very impressed with Wells and not impressed with Looper even though they had similar results in their first outings. By the all-star break I think we will see about a 2 run difference in ERA for these two guys.

BRINGBACKWILSON, I ask you why. Taguchi will have to be carried off the field for crapping his pants and forgetting where he is by August. (He is aging that rapidly)

The Good News: Eckstein and Kennedy look average. Wells and Molina look like they might have career years.

Ouch, my head hurts...I need a donut.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Apr 5, 2007 9:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

looper

i was only half paying attention, but i thought he looked tired in the 6th.

by dmb60614 on Apr 5, 2007 9:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I was at the game,

Larry, and I questioned the move of not having a lefty up in the pen for Green/Valentin, especially with Loop's pitch count at 85. Everyone around me in the bleachers were A) too cold to give a damn about baseball strategy, or B) too drunk, as they were drinking heavily to get warm.

I never understood the B) crowd, by the way. It's Wednesday night, it's a baseball game. Beers are only $9. Let's get ripped! But I digress.

I'm not as concerned by our offense as a whole as I am by our outfield contribution. If these guys can't catch the damn ball, what good are they? They aren't going to hit very well- we know that. Jimmy may take a month to get in regular season form.

P-Dawg got booed awfully badly after his 2-run muff in RF - and rightly so - but it did seem to be quite loud for StL fans to boo a guy in the first series. Could've been just circumstantial, but I booed him as well, especially since he did not hustle to catch the pop fly to shallow right-center earlier in the game. They were both catchable balls. Hell, even JROD makes 1 of those two plays, if not both.

by silent_bob on Apr 5, 2007 9:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Since we all agree that our Birds are

a flawed team (though perhaps we differ on the details), a good humbling to start the season is just what we need. It will concentrate the minds of TLR (as to who ought to be playing every day) and management (as to who ought to be on the roster).

by MdRedbirdFreak on Apr 5, 2007 10:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You may be

right on that. Some good ass-hammerings at the start may send a signal that something needs to be done. If they'd won even one of those games, TLR and Jock could sit back and say "See, they're not so bad." They will still say that in public, but you know they're starting to get nervous now too. The pitching experiments seem to be working so far, but the outfield is a gigantic hole that needs fixing. We'll see how things go in Houston, but if they get hammered by a team that just got swept by the Pirates, then the state of this team may finally become too obvious to overlook. I'd rather all this happens now than to hover around 500 in the first half and sink like a rock in the second. A really rotten start may force the front office to open that big checkbook and get an outfield/bat or two.

by rockin redbird on Apr 5, 2007 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't it 1997 when the Birds

lost their first 6 games and then won on a HR from Willie McGee? That's the most recent season in which the Cardinals essentially stood pat after a good year, and paid the price. I remember '97 as an intensely frustrating team. I just hope '07 isn't a repeat.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Apr 5, 2007 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

1997

Yup. I remember that distinctly because, while I followed the loss on the Wrigley Field scoreboard during the coldest Opening Day I can remember. It was no fun.

Meanwhile, as the Cards were starting 0-6, the Cubs were starting 1997 0-14. Now that was a bad team.

by levistahl on Apr 5, 2007 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good perspective.

Don't know what, if anything, they can do about it - but if this team keeps losing, TLR is going to get awfully cranky - and Walt will be forced to do something.

by silent_bob on Apr 5, 2007 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so what I'm reading is:

The Mets are just that good.
Dictionaries have words in them. Some of the words originate from years in which the Cardinals had good seasons, and others originate from years in which the Cardinals' seasons were not as good.
No, no, this is a GOOD thing - now the Cards will KNOW how bad they are.
(various excuses/grumblings).

Needless to say, the first series didn't go so well. And none of what I'm reading here is making me feel any better, to be honest. I am depressed.

What's the general opinion on what it would take to pry Pat Burrell/Adam Dunn away? And do we think there's any chance this could happen before June?

I believe in the Sports Guy rule. Any "complaining" in this post is actually happy, cheerful "constructive criticism."

by nycbirdo on Apr 5, 2007 10:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

"originate from"

blah. editor please. that's awful.

I believe in the Sports Guy rule. Any "complaining" in this post is actually happy, cheerful "constructive criticism."

by nycbirdo on Apr 5, 2007 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

(not so) fun with small sample sizes

Stats after 3 games:

The Cards have scored the fewest runs in baseball - two. That's notwithstanding the fact that two teams have played just one game, and twelve have played two games - which means almost half the clubs have played fewer than three games at this point. To repeat: dead last, two runs in three games. The Indians have played two games and scored 20 runs. The Yankees got nine in their first game, against, I believe, Scott Kazmir.

No team that has played three games has as few extra-base hits as the Cards (five). Only one team (the Rangers) has played three games and has fewer total bases (they have 25, to the Cards' 26).

The Cards lead baseball in hitting into double plays, with seven. Second place: two teams tied with four.

Also, Albert Pujols: 1 for 10, .450 OPS.

I believe in the Sports Guy rule. Any "complaining" in this post is actually happy, cheerful "constructive criticism."

by nycbirdo on Apr 5, 2007 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Carpenter's Elbow

In the broadcast last night, when they showed he was wearing oven mittens on his hands, Scott Spiezio grabbed Carps elbow from behind and tugged on it twice to see what he was wearing.

I was screaming, "What are you DOING!!"

Then Carpenter promptly took that same elbow, bent it up, tilted his head back and poured sunflower seeds into his mouth.

I'd say the range of motion has returned.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Apr 5, 2007 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Marquis Today

Since there's no Cards game today, anybody want to play an over-under game on Jason Marquis' start for the next hour? I'll pull some numbers outta my ass, predict whether he'll be over or under:

IP: 6
ER: 5
HR: 1
BB: 4
K: 3
GO/AO: 1.00

At least one of your will figure out where I really got those numbers.

I'll take under on all of them except home runs and G/A.

by liam on Apr 5, 2007 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Over/Under

Under
Over
Over
Under
Over
Over

by cardzfanbub on Apr 5, 2007 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

over/under

IP: under
ER: under
HR: push
BB: under
K: push
GO/AO: over

I believe in the Sports Guy rule. Any "complaining" in this post is actually happy, cheerful "constructive criticism."

by nycbirdo on Apr 5, 2007 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Marquis

Doesn't look like any of Marquis' prior starts with the Cardinals as I suspected.

Over
Under
Push
Under
Over
Over

I think he's going to start out hot for the Cubs until he gets bored with losing and starts fighting with Piniella.

by STLEdge on Apr 5, 2007 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess:

IP: over 6
ER: over 5
HR: over 1
BB: under 4
K: over 3
GO/AO: under 1.00

Can't find your source for the numbers,although they're close to Carp's last start and one of Marquis' 2006 starts against the Mets

by Don Zero on Apr 5, 2007 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Love these

I wish we would post more of these in the main threads...

IP-Under
ER-Over
HR-Over
BB-Over
K-Under
GO/AO-Over

by BigJawnMize on Apr 5, 2007 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Final Score, FWIW

IP: 6 Push
ER: 1 Under
HR: 0 Under
BB: 2 Under
K: 1 Under
G/A: 10/7 Over

I took the base figures as the worst put up by any or the Cardinals three starters so far.

by liam on Apr 6, 2007 6:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Rajah, and TLR

Speaking of the Rajah... any chance we might get to see a bit more of the all-time tourney? At least that way a Cardinal will win a game.

BTW, there hasn't been much talk of "Crazy Tony" versus "Genius Tony." So far genius Tony hasn't shown up.

by Zubin on Apr 5, 2007 11:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't classify this

as Crazy Tony though, either.

Until the pitcher is leading off or something equally as wacky.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Apr 5, 2007 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

marquis

threw 6 pitches in the first inning.

satis superque

by ortic jones on Apr 5, 2007 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

33 pitches

Through three innings. He's pitching well.

by liam on Apr 5, 2007 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll bet

Marquis will be fine...at first. He'll win some games and earn all kinds of good will. Then his ego will rear its ugly head, he will come to believe he knows more than his coaches, and viola!--Bi-Polar Betty lives again. I keep warning my Cubfan friends not to fall into his trap, but they're too puffed up with Chicago media hype to listen :-)

by rockin redbird on Apr 5, 2007 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don't remember him doing much of that

for us, more like 35 pitches and 3 runs.

satis superque

by ortic jones on Apr 5, 2007 12:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

when

he was good, he was very good.

But, man, when he was bad...

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Apr 5, 2007 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reds Lineup

I was thinking, what's with Brandon Phillips batting third?

In Spring, he batted .338.357/.676 with six home runs.

by liam on Apr 5, 2007 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See 2004...

by Valatan on Apr 5, 2007 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looper

I don't have his pitching info in front of me as I'm at work and should be, you know, working but it was clear that he tired in the 6th. What was most noticeable to me is that his location was affected by it. Maybe the Mets were fooled early in the game and not by the 6th, but the pitches to LoDuca and Beltran were belt-high, middle of the plate. I'll have to check at home on the velocities but I think he may have only hit 90 once in that inning. His fastball was regularly between 91 and 93 and then, toward the end of his outing, he was around 89. Not a huge drop but maybe enough, especially when coupled with the loss of location, to enable those hitters to square up the ball.

In short, I'm not sure that the Mets hit him well b/c it was the 3rd time through the order. It's possible but, to me, the fatigue was really noticeable. I don't know how long it will take to get him to where he has the stamina to be a starter. I think the jury's still out on that one.

As for Green and Valentin, if I remember correctly, he had owned them in their first 2 AB's. Interestingly, until the 6th, it was the right-handers who had given him trouble. LoDuca had a couple of hits, Alou I think had one, and the other hit was by a left-hander. So I wasn't surprised when he left Looper in to pitch to Green and Valentin. I think Tony was trying to gauge what he had in Looper. To me he was clearly done but I guess Tony had every reason to think he'd be able to get them. That hit by Green really hurt (or would have if Hancock, Springer, and Wilson hadn't turned into the Bad News Bears for the next 2 innings).

I'll check my stuff when I get home and repost just to clarify on mph and Looper's pitching. FWIW, I was very impressed with him though his stamina is an obvious issue.

by chuckb on Apr 5, 2007 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

loop

i was honored enough to watch the bullpen collapse in person lastnight. you're right, loop looked good until the 6th and everybody knew he was tired. i predicted before the game started, he couldn't go that long. he's never been a starter. i said if we got 5 innings out of him i'd be happy.
anyway, the rest of the team looked like a shitty high school team. backward k's, missing flyballs (edmonds could have too), bats flying into dugouts etc. honestly, that was the worst cardinals game i've ever seen and i've been to at least 30.....
bad day at the park is better than a good day studying.

10.27.06..greatest day of my life

by steveo61086 on Apr 5, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

also

He had absolutely 0 run support. That might have dinked around upstairs - new situation, down 2 runs, getting on in the game, no run support = 'wtf am i doing out here?'

by Birds on the Matt on Apr 5, 2007 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Am I right

...or does our pythagorean come out to a record of

2-160.

Well 1.6 wins but I figure we would get lucky that game and pull it out.

by Harknights on Apr 5, 2007 1:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

To be honest

I figured Marquis would pitch well this year. He is fueled by hate and spite much as he was in 2004. It is when the Cubs get into years 2 and 3 that the Marquis we all came to know and love (love to hate that is) will show up. Lets see how he takes it when Pinella goes with Zambrano, Lily, and Hill in the NLDS and leaves Marquis on the sidelines...

by JMedwick on Apr 5, 2007 2:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How about Eck's Very Hot Start?

AB: 7
H: 3
2b: 1
RBI: 1
AVG: .429
OBP: .600
SLG: .571

And yet, he has scored 0 runs.

Duncan the Younger and King Pujols will heat up which will make runs more plentiful. I just hope that it is enough...

by bgh on Apr 5, 2007 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

07 bullpen

is there any chance that sillman or perez gets called up this year when brad thompson gives us the lead in the 8th inning?

by truemun12 on Apr 5, 2007 2:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Reds take the lead

on a typical Cubs play: passed ball on Ball 4, Barrett stands still acting as if he doesn't know what to do.

They then get blasted in the bottom of the 8th, down 5-2.

Makes my day a bit better.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Apr 5, 2007 3:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hehe

I'm watching that one too. Feels weird, rooting for the Reds...

"God is back in the National League. Matter of fact, he is staying at my house." -Joaquin Andujar

by SleepyCA on Apr 5, 2007 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

church

Any one notice R Church is having a chance to start for the Nationals and is doing good. 300 avg 800 slg 417 obs. also side not belliard sint doing bad in limited playing time. Wish we could have made a move for Church when he was a minor leaguer last year..

by only on tuesdays on Apr 5, 2007 3:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs