The 2010 season was a frustrating one in which to be a member of the Cardinal faithful. After an ungraceful early exit from the 2009 playoffs, the Cardinals signed free agent Matt Holliday to fortify the middle of the lineup and ensure that nearly every member of the 2009 National League Central champions returned to defend their crown. The potential of the lineup on paper flexed its real-life muscles on Opening Day in an eleven-run pummeling of the Reds and for the first few weeks of the season the Cardinals looked like the type of juggernaut not seen under the bend of the Gateway Arch since the days of the vaunted MV3. Then Rasmus fell into a slump that would be half of the hallmark of his Harvey Dent, good-and-bad 2010, David Freese again injured an ankle, and the brittle Ryan Ludwick suffered a calf injury. Combined with the yearlong struggles of Brendan Ryan and Skip Schumaker, the offense was frustrating to watch for many. The knife was then twisted by the Mozeliak-La Russa roster reformation. By late summer, the Cardinals featured a lineup with below-average offensive production at second base, shortstop, and third base, no matter which of Lopez, Schumaker, Ryan, Miles, or Feliz were penciled in to start.
Those more spreadsheet-inclined pointed out the club was unlucky. “The Cardinals are simply under-performing their Pythagorean Record,” the basement-dwellers would say. And, to be sure, the Cardinals were. They scored 736 runs in 2010 and allowed 641. The Cardinals, a club which finished with an 86-76 record, had a Pythagorean Record of 91-71.
For comparison, the 2009 Central Division Champions had a record of...91-71 and a Pythagorean Record of...91-71. The 2009 club scored 730 runs, or, six fewer than the inconsistent and offensively disappointing 2010 group that plated 736. The 2009 Cardinals also allowed 640 runs, just one run less than the 641 given up by the 2010 team. How then do we account for five fewer team wins last season than what their Pythagorean Record is and what the club compiled in 2009? With virtually identical seasonal totals for runs allowed and scored, it would seem that the the ebb and flow of run production and prevention is the difference between satisfying champion and disappointing also-ran. Perhaps it was consistency? Perhaps it was luck?
*Yes, this is what I do on Saturday nights "for fun."
Runs Scored |
# of Games |
Share of 162 |
Wins |
Losses |
Winning % |
0 |
13 |
8.02% |
0 |
13 |
.000 |
1 |
17 |
10.49% |
3 |
14 |
.176 |
2 |
22 |
13.58% |
3 |
19 |
.136 |
3 |
13 |
8.02% |
3 |
10 |
.231 |
4 |
21 |
12.96% |
16 |
5 |
.762 |
5 |
15 |
9.26% |
11 |
4 |
.733 |
6 |
17 |
10.49% |
14 |
3 |
.824 |
7 |
14 |
8.64% |
9 |
5 |
.643 |
8 or more |
30 |
18.52% |
27 |
3 |
.900 |
Runs Scored |
# of Games |
Share of 162 |
Wins |
Losses |
Winning % |
0 |
207 |
7.99% |
0 |
207 |
.000 |
1 |
282 |
10.88% |
44 |
238 |
.156 |
2 |
350 |
13.50% |
88 |
262 |
.251 |
3 |
367 |
14.16% |
142 |
225 |
.387 |
4 |
315 |
12.15% |
179 |
136 |
.568 |
5 |
283 |
10.92% |
172 |
111 |
.608 |
6 |
229 |
8.83% |
168 |
61 |
.734 |
7 |
171 |
6.60% |
135 |
36 |
.789 |
8 or more |
388 |
14.97% |
360 |
28 |
.928 |
Runs Scored |
# of Games |
Share of 162 |
Wins |
Losses |
Winning % |
0 |
10 |
6.17% |
0 |
13 |
.000 |
1 |
10 |
6.17% |
1 |
9 |
.100 |
2 |
24 |
14.81% |
8 |
16 |
.333 |
3 |
33 |
20.37% |
16 |
17 |
.485 |
4 |
17 |
10.49% |
8 |
9 |
.471 |
5 |
19 |
11.72% |
17 |
2 |
.894 |
6 |
13 |
8.02% |
8 |
5 |
.615 |
7 |
12 |
7.40% |
9 |
3 |
.750 |
8 or more |
24 |
14.81% |
24 |
0 |
1.000 |
What struck me more than anything else about 2009 was how consistently average the offense, in fact, performed. It scored three or more runs in 118 games. The 2010 team scored three or more runs in 110 games. The 2010 offense was shut-out or held to one run more often than in 2009. In 2010, the Cards scored zero or one run(s) 30 times; in 2009, they did so in just 20. And therein lies the rub. There were more offensive valleys in 2010, where the bats only mustered the most frustratingly low of totals, and it showed in the standings. The low offensive output fell disproportionately on days where the pitching staff performed well in preventing runs. In games where they allowed two runs, the 2010 Cardinals were 12-8, which equals a .600 winning percentage. The 2010 National League as a whole was 256-93 for a .734 winning percentage. In games where the 2010 club scored three runs, it was 3-10, for a .231 winning percentage well below the .387 league-average winning percentage where a club scores three runs are behind the 2009 Cardinals' .485 winning percentage. Last season's Cardinals lost far too many games when they plated three runs and far too many games when their opponents only plated two runs.