Cards in the clutch

by chuckb on Feb 24, 2008 10:54 AM EST in News Comment 34 comments

The Cardinals were a very poor clutch-hitting team in '07. As a team, they ranked 14th in the NL in their OPS w/ 2 outs and RISP - a feckless .682. Even the Nationals fared better in those situations, a full 46 points higher than the Cards. The NL average OPS in these 2 out, RISP situations was .756. Teams averaged scoring 238 runs in these situations while the Cards were held to 210. It stands to reason that the Cards could have gained 3 wins in the standings by being an average clutch-hitting team in '07.

It's reasonable, however, to question whether or not that's realistic. There's considerable debate, at least among statheads, as to whether or not there really is such a thing as clutch-hitting. There's a good argument to be made, for example, that those people who perform well in the clutch (David Ortiz, Albert Pujols) are just great hitters and perform well all the time. It stands to reason that they'd be well above average w/ 2 outs and RISP.

With that in mind, we should remember that the Cards were below average offensively in '07 - finishing 9th in the NL in OPS. It's interesting to note that the Cards' OPS of .743 was more than 60 points higher than their performance in the clutch. Is it reasonable to think this team should be that much worse in clutch situations than they are in every other situation? What was the average OPS in the NL in '07? .756 - exactly the same as the average OPS in clutch situations in the NL in '07.

If the Cards had performed in the clutch as they did in every other situation last year, they likely would have added around 22 runs to their total - more than 2 wins. (The Cards were 9th in OPS; the Pirates 9th in runs scored w/ 2 outs and RISP - they scored 232 runs in those situations.) So it's reasonable to conclude that if the Cards had performed in the clutch as they did in every other situation, they would have added 2-3 wins to their record.

Clutch hitting on an individual level is difficult to determine on an annual basis b/c hitters have so few PA's in those situations. For example, last year's great free agent acquisition - Adam Kennedy - pounded out a robust .451 OPS w/ 2 outs and RISP. Impotent is the word that comes to my mind, yet he had only 38 PA's in those situations. Was his horrific performance in those situations b/c he was bad last year, b/c he nutted up in clutch situations, or simply due to bad luck. A 38 PA sample size makes it difficult to create solid judgments.

Even if we look at Pujols, far and away the Cards' best hitter and best clutch-hitter, he only had 54 PA's in 2 out, RISP situations in '07. His OPS in those situations - 1.066 - a career LOW! It's more than 30 points lower than his previous career low in 2002. Many of us believed Albert to be pressing at times last year. Considering the state of the offense for much of the season, Albert seemed to put an inordinate amount of pressure on himself to come through in tough situations and perhaps that's reflected in his RELATIVELY low OPS last year. Or maybe it's simply caused the randomness of trying to make informed judgments based on 54 PA's. It's tough to tell.

Nonetheless, the only Cards' regulars outside of Pujols to perform near their '07 numbers in the clutch were Molina and Duncan. Molina's OPS of .721 in clutch situations isn't going to win him a Silver Slugger but it is slightly better than his '07 OPS of .708. Duncan's .916 OPS in the clutch was considerably better than the .834 he posted all year long. Aside from those 3, only Ludwick and Edmonds, among semi-regular Cardinals, posted an OPS above .700 w/ 2 outs and RISP. (Both were at .706)

What can explain this? Were so many Cardinals so bad in clutch situations b/c of the radomness of being measured in so few PA's? I doubt it. Is there a sort of snowball effect - where hitting poorly in clutch situations becomes somewhat contagious in that 1 person's poor showing in tough situations causes another to put more pressure on himself, thus making him worse, which increases the pressure on other hitters and so forth? Who knows? Was it simply caused by the fact that the Cards had so many mediocre-to-bad hitters in their lineup last year? Possibly, but that doesn't explain why they were so much worse in these situations.

I can't help but think that some of it had to do w/ the fact that the Cards were coming off a World Championship the previous season. Might they have tightened up in these pressure situations b/c of high expectations from the '06 World Series triumph? As Carpenter went down, the pressure to come through in these tough situations became more pronounced and as they began to lose, they saw their season slipping away. Is this even a remote possibility?

I think that, probably, there's a little bit of truth in all of it. They were just not very good hitters, to be sure. Rolen and Edmonds weren't what they were in the past. For much of the year, the Cards had 2 above-average hitters in their lineup. Expecting them to be very good w/ 2 outs and RISP was expecting too much. But I also think that there was an inordinate amount of pressure on them last year as well. Rolen had the pressure of trying to rebound from injury. Eckstein was approaching free agency. Kennedy was trying to prove himself worthy of being a starter on a defending World Championship team. They all felt the pressure of being the champion and that pressure increased mightily as Carpenter went down in game 1. Pujols, though he had a very good season and was very good w/ 2 outs and RISP, wasn't what he'd been in the past. I don't believe that all of us who noted anecdotally that he was pulling off the ball in tough situations were imagining it. Don't misunderstand - I'm not at all accusing him of being a poor clutch hitter but I do believe that he put a ton of pressure on himself last year as Rolen, Edmonds, and Carpenter were unproductive and so he wasn't quite as good as he'd been in the past or as he expects to be.

So what does that mean for this year? Well, the good news is that the Cards have relatively little pressure on them as a team in '08. No one expects them to finish above 3rd or 4th in the division and some will pick us for 5th. Rolen has been replaced by a better offensive player at 3B (Glaus) and we certainly won't be worse in CF than Edmonds was last year (.728 OPS). Will we be worse at 2B? Not possible. Duncan should be healthy and he was very good last year before getting hurt. There's OF depth, if not strength, so that if Rasmus doesn't make it this spring, or Ankiel turns out to be mediocre at best - there are (hopefully) adequate replacements in Barton and Ludwick, and then Mather or Schumaker or someone else.

There's little doubt that this team has its problems. The rotation is pretty weak after Wainwright. The lineup has its warts at SS, 2B and still only has 3 above average offensive players. But hopefully the team can perform adequately in the clutch this year thus enabling the team to grab a couple more wins and making it a little easier on Cardinal nation as well.

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Some statistical mitigation?

I wonder if our extremely top-heavy lineup accounted for some of the disparity between total numbers and "clutch" numbers. When so much of our production comes from Albert, I'd bet that at the end of a Pujols AB, the team is significantly more likely to be in a RISP situation (relative to any other batter). As such, the bottom of the lineup seems likely to have more clutch ABs. Given how horrendous the bottom of our lineup was, I could imagine a slight redistribution of AB from Albert and Duncan to, for example, Kennedy and Miles, resulting in a big drop in clutch #s relative to total #s.

I don't know where to get PA in clutch situations, but judging by the numbers you presented here, you can see the effect I'm mentioning. Pujols only had 40% more clutch PA than Kennedy (54-38) even though he had more than twice as many ABs on the year (565-279). I don't know if this type of shift accounts for the whole picture, but it certainly would have some impact.

by brackenthebox on Feb 24, 2008 11:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Leverage

I don't know how you calculated it, but I'd have to imagine that a 60 point OPS teamwise improvement in highly leveraged situations like RISP and whatnot would improve the team by more than 22 runs.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Feb 24, 2008 11:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

agree

although I don't know if OPS is the right tool for figuring this. I would almost argue that the basic vanilla chadwick batting average is the most important indicator, since a hit scores 1-2 runs while a double or triple also scores 1-2 runs; only a home run scores 3 unless the bases are loaded. Obviously a double sets the team up to score again, but that will require yet another hit.

They had 744 PA's (639 AB's) with 2 out, risp, and batted .227; overall they batted .274. Had they batted .274 in the clutch, and assuming that all of their 2 out/RISP situations were a man on second only, and that he always scores on a hit, they would have scored a minimum of (.274-.227)*639 = ~30 more runs. Since some of those would have been home runs, some would have been with more than one man on, and sometimes the next guy up would get a hit too, I would say they potentially could have scored 40, maybe 45 more runs.

by SleepyCA on Feb 24, 2008 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Speed, or lack thereof?

I wonder if the lack of speed, both at stealing bases and running bases, contributed to the pressure to take a bigger swing? Even though, El Hombre and Rolen are considered to be very good baserunners, I had the sense that we were not able to manufacture many runs last year.

Wouldn't it be exciting to have a team like the running Redbirds again? Willie, Ozzie, et al.?

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Feb 24, 2008 1:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

no lack of lack

it seems the major issue is just being bad at bat. the 2 out risp situations were just not daunting to opposition pitchers who felt comfortable pitching around everyone but the number 2 hitter. with so little back-up its hard to understand how albert did as well as he did.

by sportsman on Feb 24, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Will Izturis be a myth buster or just a bust?

The likely performance improvement you cite at several positions for this year's team are encouraging, houstoncardinal. I believe you are following the party line in your estimation of performance at shortstop, though.

It seems that Cesar's talent and skills are being significantly underestimated. What seems to be overlooked in his case is the projections that should be made from looking at his developmental curve and at the effect of injuries and other disruptions on Izturis' performance.

Because of his excellent defense, the Dodgers rushed Izturis to the NL too young, when he was only 21 years old, before he had developed as a hitter, and he was an awful hitter his first two full seasons, when he was 22 and 23 years old:

2002 AVG .232, OBP .253!!!
2003 AVG .251, OBP .282!!!

In his third full season, at age 24, Izturis moved up the learning curve enough to become a respectable hitter:

2004 AVG .288, OBP .330

That year he had 193 hits, including 4 HR, struck out only 70 times in 670 AB, and stole 25 bases in 34 attempts. He also won a gold glove.

The upward trend in his hitting continued in the beginning of his fourth full season, at age 25:

April 2005 AVG .333, OBP .370 in 102 AB
May 2005 AVG .350, OBP .402 in 117 AB

Izturis was voted to the All-Star team that season.

But in June 2005 he began having a series of physical ailments and as a result his hitting abruptly plummeted:

June 2005 AVG .105, OBP .154, in only 86 AB

His hitting continued to suffer and his playing time continued to diminish significantly the rest of that year. After the All-Star break he had only 22 more AB than he had had in May alone:

2005 Post-ASB AVG .216, OBP .257, in 139 AB

Izturis was playing hurt. At the end of that 2005 season Izturis had Tommy John surgery. During the offseason, the Dodgers signed Furcal to play SS. After Izturis returned to the diamond, on June 20, 2006, the Dodgers played him part-time at third base. A month later, on July 31, 2006, Izturis was traded to the Cubs for Greg Maddux and $2 million cash.

Only three weeks later, on August 22, 2006, the Cubs put Izturis on the DL with bad hamstring. He had only 60 AB that month and his hitting continued to suffer (.233 AVG, .292 OBP). When he came off the DL in September he had only 13 AB.

It seems that these severe disruptions of Izturis' regular play, through a combination of physical ailments and being shifted from SS to 3B, as well as being traded in the middle of the season and soon after going on the DL, seriously interfered with Izturis' timing or his confidence as a hitter, or both.

By the beginning of last year Izturis had lost his job as the regular SS for the Cubs. He had only 50 AB in April and his hitting continued to suffer under those conditions:

.200 AVG, . 273 OBP

But in May, Izturis got more playing time, he seemed to get back on track again finally:

.297 AVG, .350 OBP in 74 AB

Izturis outhit Ryan Theriot that month. But in the next month, the Cubs gave Theriot increasing playing time as the regular SS and the Cubs reduced playing time for Izturis, once again relegated to the role of utility player (56 AB in June) and his hitting plummeted again:

June 2007 AVG .232, OBP .259.

Finally, on July 19, 2007, the Cubs sent Izturis to the Pirates. He had only 28 AB that month and 106 AB for the rest of the season.

How will Izturis respond to being given regular AB's every day again and playing at his natural position full time at short? How will he respond to the encouragement of his fellow Latin Americans who are the team leaders on the Cardinal infield, Albert Pujols, Yadier Molina and Jose Oquendo, and to playing before a full house of encouraging, gracious fans rooting for him every home game in St. Louis' "Baseball Heaven"? Will these conditions allow him to regain his confidence and find his batting groove again, so he can play at the level he did in 2004 and the first third of 2005, before his physical ailments derailed his career? Will Cesar get back on track on his development curve as a hitter, from his premature entry to the NL, into his third season when his hitting came together respectably?

It should be fascinating seeing that question answered when the season begins. But let's not join the madding crowd's bleating about how awful Izturis will be until we've seen how he actually performs under the conditions he will face in St. Louis.

The most recent set of data we have for Itzuris under normal conditions, that is, as a healthy player with a full time role at one position, is in 2004 and the first third of 2005.

Based on that set of data, Izturis has demonstrated that he can reasonably be expected to be a respectable hitter, at least, for a shortstop. The data cover 889 consecutive AB's over the season and a third in 2004 and 2005, before his physical problems began (elbow, hamstring, etc.). Izturis' AB's in this period amount to 33% of his career total of 2751 AB's, a very good sample size. In that large sample of AB's, Izturis has an AVG of .301 and an OBP of .344. It is extremely unlikely that performing at that level over that long a period was a fluke. And given that Izturis is still only 28 years old, it is reasonable to expect that he will still be near the top of his career curve.

Taking into account the performance curve and injury history for Izturis, it would seem to be a good bet that Izturis will be a solid contributor this year.

by CardsWin on Feb 24, 2008 2:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cesar

Good analysis, CWS. I've been suggesting about the same thing in some previous posts. The crucial thing here is whether he is really healthy or, as some others have suggested, has never recovered. I have assumed that the Cardinals had information that he was, indeed, recovered before they signed him and that, plus the data you recited, are my reasons for optimism. I remember him as a supreme shortstop regardless of his offense and I will be happy if he recovers his old form defensively even if he doesn't make it back to his '04 offensive levels. With all of the rehabbing and sinkerball pitchers we've got the defense up the middle will be crucial.

by easy on Feb 24, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You should be in politics...

Or advertising. To make that sort of case for the worst hitter in baseball.

by DiscoJer on Feb 24, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

or recycling

since that entire white paper appeared almost verbatim one month ago

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/comments/2008/1/25/25223/7285/7#7

it wasn't any more convincing the 2d time around . . . . .

by lboros on Feb 24, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ironic comments by Az and Larry

How many times now have you and other primary authors on VEB recycled your tired complaint about how awful a hitter Izturis is?

And isn't it peculiar how otherwise knowledgeable baseball aficionados will sometimes ignore significant bodies of data when the data contradict their mindset?

Were you equally sure what an awful offensive player Ozzie Smith would be when they acquired him?

Here is Ozzi's OPS+ in the four years before he became a Cardinal:

82
48
71
62

Here is Cesar's OPS+ in the four years before he became a Cardinal:

88
66
57
60

Smith was young enough to be on the upward side of his learning curve, and he went on to become a much better hitter than he had been before he became a Cardinal.

Ozzie joined the Cardinals at age 27. Cesar is 28.

The primary difference between the offensive success of Smith and Izturis before joining the Cardinals, aside from the fact that Smith's OPS+ of 48 was 9 points lower than Izturis' lowest OPS+ and Izturis' OPS+ of 88 was 6 points higher than Smith's highest OPS+, is that Smith had stolen more bases. Of course, Smith had the advantage of no having had his performance hindered by serious injury and by being jerked around from SS to 3B, 2B, utility player, etc., while he was in recovering from injury.

Before you blast me for comparing Izturis with Smith, keep in mind that I am only referring to their offensive success before joining the Cardinals. I am not comparing their careers overall, nor their fielding. The point is that it seems very likely Az and Larry and others would have been just as pessimistic of Smith's prospects offensively, when he became a Cardinal, as they are now of the prospects for Izturis.

Again, Cesar could turn out to be a bust. Or he could turn out to be an undervalued player who was a very smart acquisition. Nothing in the empirical data makes the latter prediction more likely than the former. We just won't know until the season unfolds.

What we do know is that it is foolish to be smug about one's predictions when our predictions ignore the well established pattern in the learning curves of baseball players in their 20's and when we who ignore how much a player's history of performance can be skewed by the impact of injuries and lack of regular playing time.

by CardsWin on Feb 24, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

More or less

I meant to say, of course, "Nothing in the empirical data makes the former prediction (failure) more likely than the latter (success)."

by CardsWin on Feb 24, 2008 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i certainly didn't find it "convincing"

either time, but it is definitely interesting and could very well be the truth. It's awesome that you believe in the guy enough to dig that deep into his history- have you seen something to make you think he is a better player than his numbers (like molina, ludwick) or are you just basing your argument on the stats?

If he does turn out to be the hitter you think he is, and it is determined that megdal or someones analysis predicted that he was the player you think he is, then that will be a real triumph for their system.

FWIW he did manage to put up a .761 OPS in winter ball, but he did it with a .333 average that he won't sustain; he only had 4 xbh's and 2 walks in 65 PA's. Correct for BABIP and he's lucky to have been over .700, and that is against sub-AAA competition...

by SleepyCA on Feb 24, 2008 9:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well said: Not Convincing, but interesting.

It's not that I'm convinced that Izturis will be an excellent hitter. It's that I see no reason to be convinced that he will be as awful a hitter as some glibly declare he will be, as if it's a given, before he has even one AB as a full-time starter again.

How likely is it that by mere chance such an "awful hitter" would, at ages 24 and 25, over 889 consecutive AB's, in 2004 and 2005, before his physical problems began, have an AVG of .301 and an OBP of .344? If Az would run a stat test on that data set, he'd find that such an extended performance is statistically incongruent with the hypothesis that Izturis actually has the skills of a hitter with a sub-.300 OBP, as we are incessantly reminded.

by CardsWin on Feb 24, 2008 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Even odds

The odds that Izturis was a true-talent .260 hitter over those 900 at-bats are the same as him being a .280 hitter in his preceding 1000 at-bats. To believe Izturis will be anything but awful, you have to assume that he improved dramatically in 2004, then was bad mainly due to an injury or "misuse" for 2.5 years, and now will get very healthy and be used properly.

by Rob H on Feb 24, 2008 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not yet time to bury Cesar, nor to praise him

Assuming that Izturis will be "awful" is jumping to conclusions, which simply isn't logical. Of course, it would be equally illogical to assume that Izturis will perform as well this year as he did in 2004 and the first third of 2005, before his series of physical problems began.

The only rational position really is to keep an open mind.

A rational analysis recognizes that Cesar's very poor hitting when he was 22 and 23, in his first full seasons in the NL, just might be so poor because he was rushed to the big leagues.

A rational analysis means recognizing that his next stretch of 889 consecutive AB's with a .344 OBP is just too many AB's to write off as merely a "lucky streak".

A rational analysis means recognizing that there are too many confounding factors since then, including a series of injuries; recovery from Tommy John surgery; not having the kind of regular playing time and AB's that most major league batters need to maintain effective timing as batters; and possibly a loss of the kind of confidence that almost every big leaguer will tell you is necessary for good performance (ask Brad Lidge).

A rational analysis, of course, also recognizes that it is possible that Izturis did lose his skill after he played in the All-Star game in 2005, because of the lingering effects of his physical problems or because of some other reason.

I'm not selling Izturis. But I am arguing in favor of rational analysis, not jumping to conclusions. Why don't we see what Cesar actually does once the games that count begin. David Eckstein wasn't the answer at short anymore, and none of the other free agent shortstops was any better than Izturis overall, and the Cardinals had too few trading chips to trade for a player like Renterria. So why don't we respect Mo for getting Izturis, the best alternative available? It's only for a year and the cost isn't very high, and Ryan is the backup.

If Izturis flops, then we'll have the pleasure of seeing Ryan get a chance (LaRussa said this week, finally, that Miles is not a backup alternative at short - what a relief!). So while it may not be time yet to praise Cesar, neither is it time to bury him, not yet....

by CardsWin on Feb 25, 2008 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You still need to

set a slugging percentage for our bet. How about you just pick an OPS that you feel comfortable with taking the over and I'll take the under.

We also need a dollar amount, and you need to tell me if you want this to go to charity or if you are comfortable with it just being a personal bet.

As far as this clutch thing, Rolen, Edmonds, Eckstein, and Miles make up a big chunk of the plate appearances, and were largely terrible with RISP, 2 outs. Some BABIP stuff for Eckstein and Rolen, Edmonds wasn't that great in his 50 plate appearances, and Miles was himself. I don't see what the big deal is here. Those situations make up 744 plate appearances, which is like 40 less than Jimmy Rollins had last year.

There are other ways to slice it. In B-Ref's "close and late" you get the Cardinals overperforming by a good amount.

Anyway, it's interesting to think that these guys might have been "pressing" (as a collective unit this has alwys struck me as a weird assertion) but I'll take expected variance all day long on this one.

by plh903 on Feb 25, 2008 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Predicting a .700 OPS or better for Izturis

I'll wager a friendly bet that Izturis will have an OPS of at least .700 this year, with one proviso, that he gets at least 460 AB's (so there is a large enough sample size for a decent test and large enough to give him sufficient playing time to find his timing as a hitter).

A .700 OPS would seem "respectable" (that's the term I've been using). It would have ranked Izturis #10 among "qualifying" NL SS's (with 460 AB's or more in 2007), a better OPS than these NL SS's showed in 2007:

Stephen Drew, ARI
Rafael Furcal, LAD
Felipe Lopez, WAS
Ryan Theriot,, CHC
Omar Vizquel, SFO

Note that half the playoff teams in the NL had a SS with an OPS lower than .700.

A .700 OPS might be considered even more respectable for an AL SS last year. It would have ranked Izturis #8 among "qualifying" AL SS's (with 509 AB's or more) in 2007, a better OPS than these AL SS's showed in 2007:

Jason Bartlett, MIN
Juan Uribe, CHW
Julio Lugo, BOS
Tony Pena Jr., KAN

I'd be happy to throw in a side bet that Izturis will field better than at least three quarters of the shortstops in the Major Leagues, as measured by RZR and OOZ.

Why don't we agree that whoever wins this bet will be acknowledged by the one who loses the bet, with a post on VEB?

I'm not sure if you'll see this, plh903. If not, I'll try to catch another one of your messages in the next week and reply to that.

by CardsWin on Feb 26, 2008 2:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This works.

I think a .700 OPS is fine. If you don't see this I'll try and catch you in another thread as well. Hopefully you check your user page to look for new replies, which is what I do, so you'll see this.

One problem I have though is that we're introducing a selection bias. TLR isn't a moron, has man-love for Miles, and Brendan Ryan is knocking on the door. If Cesar is pretty bad (which I think he'll be) he may not get to 460 AB.

I understand the need for a decent sample, but I'd also like to work around this as well. If Cesar loses his job at 350 PA because of poor performance I don't think that should be a draw.

by plh903 on Feb 26, 2008 4:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Selection bias

Thanks for the tip on my home page, plh. That makes things easier!

You make a good point about selection bias, both statistically and in reference to TLR. Izturis might indeed get fewer than 460 AB's because he didn't merit that many, so I'm happy to abandon that Catch-22 and go with our bet without any proviso.

By the way, I doubt Ryan will be in St. Louis when the season begins, but TLR did say last week that Ryan is the only other alternative to Izturis at shortstop (leaving Miles out of that picture). I hope the reporter got that right!

The very fact that Miles is on the roster and Gonzalez is in camp reflect TLR's obsession with certain players who simply don't contribute enough, all things considered. It's very odd how he shows some striking gaps here and there in his otherwise astute approach to management. Miles is just awful in anything other than a very limited bench role, and if Gonzales stays at Barton's expense, I'll be disgusted.

by CardsWin on Feb 26, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well we agree

on a lot then other than Cesar's expected performance.

So what kind of dollar amount are you comfortable with?

by plh903 on Feb 26, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2 Wins...

It should be noted that those are 2 Wins added to our Pythagorean results (not the standings from last year)...which we well over-performed last season anyway. D.GOOCH

Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Feb 24, 2008 3:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Anecdotally, I can remeber more than

a few games last year that were lost with the winning/tying run sitting on second base, however.

by Valatan on Feb 24, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

off topic

but we could all use a little bit of potential good news about flatbill, right?

http://tiny.cc/0HKDw

When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?

by RosevilleRedbird on Feb 24, 2008 7:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

100 mph knuckleballs...

that would be fun to watch ;)

I'm really enjoying reading Goold's articles this spring.

by SleepyCA on Feb 24, 2008 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rich Harden

He can apparently throw his forkball so it moves like a knuckler. No 100 but high-80s.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Feb 24, 2008 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Goold's Bird Land

The best thing to happen to Cardinals ST coverage—hands down, no contest.

by liam on Feb 24, 2008 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have enjoyed D. Goold, especially the blog.

He has a breezy writing style that I find enjoyable-and he always has good information.

There was also a wonderful story in the NY Times sport pages today (no link, I actually bought the damn thing because I've got to have my book reviews) about Pedro Martinez meeting up with one of his oldest and best friends from his early career with the Dodgers. The friend was Sandy Koufax! He instructed him when he was a Dodger and he still uses what Koufax taught him. It really is a sweet story, and who knew?

That's why I like spring training; all of the players are like real people right now. You never get these kind of stories once the season starts.

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Feb 24, 2008 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Koufax Story

Is here for those looking. (Unless the Grey Lady does funny stuff with direct links.)

by liam on Feb 25, 2008 12:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm a little

worried that he thinks we will be offering barton back. i'll be very disappointed if we give up on him for the likes of juan gone.

by FutureMan on Feb 24, 2008 11:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can see us giving Mr. Barton back........

and two days later, Juan pulls a hamstring......

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Feb 24, 2008 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the link, but...

while I enjoy the Bird Land blog, I have to say BOOOOOO to the use of tiny.cc for the short URL.

The obnoxious ads on the "interim page" and the lack of direct linkage make it obnoxious. In the future, use tinyurl.com instead, please.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Feb 25, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

or a href=

once you get used to it, it's a lot faster and less annoying that the tinyurl thing, and people can actually tell if the link is NWS.

by SleepyCA on Feb 26, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you gotta love this time of year

there's hope (optimism even) that reyes will pitch like he did in the minors.

there's hope that kennedy's performance was a fluke and he will be back to his career averages.

there's hope that izturis will be a gold glover again and maybe even a better offense player than he's been labeled.

we have a bunch of young guys with bright futures.

i can't wait for the games to start!

by FutureMan on Feb 24, 2008 11:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I really thought about

writing about Reyes instead of the Cards' clutch hitting last year but I decided that we've been down that road so many times, there wasn't much left to say. But you're right, it's easy to be optimistic even about Reyes this time of year.

by chuckb on Feb 24, 2008 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs