Falling House of Cards - ESPN article

[indifferent]

Another thing to consider...

 

While everyone's weighed in on how lucky/rare it is to have all five starters start 30 games or more, I think you need to consider the Cards position player injuries the Cards had last year.

 

If Rolen turns in the production of what Pecota and ZIPs peg him, given 550 ABs (and filling in Deivi Cruz for the remaining at bats), you come up with 105 runs created. Last year the Cards 3rd basemen combo had 74 runs created. That's a difference of approx. 30 runs made up at one position. The Cards lost 50 runs from the year before. Granted, Edmonds and Rolen had career years in 04, but we also lost Rolen, Walker, Sanders, and Molina (his replacements' numbers were more abyssmal than Yadi's) for extended periods of time last year. I think we can at least match the 805 runs from last year.

It was hard for us to take your injuries too seriously when guys like John Rodriguez and Abraham O. Nunez and So Taguchi immediately jumped in and hit .280+ and outperformed not only just about every other bench player in the league, but also many starters.

 

OK, but I just showed where the loss of Rolen as an example cost us hypothetically 30 runs over the course of a season.

[Andy]

Another thing to consider...

 

While everyone's weighed in on how lucky/rare it is to have all five starters start 30 games or more, I think you need to consider the Cards position player injuries the Cards had last year.

 

If Rolen turns in the production of what Pecota and ZIPs peg him, given 550 ABs (and filling in Deivi Cruz for the remaining at bats), you come up with 105 runs created. Last year the Cards 3rd basemen combo had 74 runs created. That's a difference of approx. 30 runs made up at one position. The Cards lost 50 runs from the year before. Granted, Edmonds and Rolen had career years in 04, but we also lost Rolen, Walker, Sanders, and Molina (his replacements' numbers were more abyssmal than Yadi's) for extended periods of time last year. I think we can at least match the 805 runs from last year.

It was hard for us to take your injuries too seriously when guys like John Rodriguez and Abraham O. Nunez and So Taguchi immediately jumped in and hit .280+ and outperformed not only just about every other bench player in the league, but also many starters.

 

OK, but I just showed where the loss of Rolen as an example cost us hypothetically 30 runs over the course of a season.

You won 100 games. That wasn't enough? :wink:

 

Just playing. I'm not looking forward to having to face Rolen again this season. He kills us.

[UK1679666180]

Also, despite the injuries to Walker and Sanders, STL still had an overall .834 OPS in LF and a .795 OPS out of RF. If you bet that Encarnacion will get one and Bigbie/Taguchi/Rodriguez will get the other, I hope you get odds that would pay you plenty for that minor miracle.

[indifferent]

Another thing to consider...

 

While everyone's weighed in on how lucky/rare it is to have all five starters start 30 games or more, I think you need to consider the Cards position player injuries the Cards had last year.

 

If Rolen turns in the production of what Pecota and ZIPs peg him, given 550 ABs (and filling in Deivi Cruz for the remaining at bats), you come up with 105 runs created. Last year the Cards 3rd basemen combo had 74 runs created. That's a difference of approx. 30 runs made up at one position. The Cards lost 50 runs from the year before. Granted, Edmonds and Rolen had career years in 04, but we also lost Rolen, Walker, Sanders, and Molina (his replacements' numbers were more abyssmal than Yadi's) for extended periods of time last year. I think we can at least match the 805 runs from last year.

It was hard for us to take your injuries too seriously when guys like John Rodriguez and Abraham O. Nunez and So Taguchi immediately jumped in and hit .280+ and outperformed not only just about every other bench player in the league, but also many starters.

 

OK, but I just showed where the loss of Rolen as an example cost us hypothetically 30 runs over the course of a season.

You won 100 games. That wasn't enough? :wink:

 

Just playing. I'm not looking forward to having to face Rolen again this season. He kills us.

 

:D Teams are constructed financially in a certain manner and if say, Grudz goes down instead of Rolen for the season, the fact that a bench player comes up and plays well in his stead, the Cards lose far less than if it were Rolen. My biggest fear is that Rolen is damaged goods, career-wise.

[stitchface]

Wolf - what do you think the odds of your starting five throwing 160 starts again is? I would say about zero. With that in mind, what do the Cards have for a 6th and 7th option?

I doubt it happens as well, but zero means you are giving that no chance of happening. I'd give them better odds than that. Our 6th option is Ponson/Reyes depending on which one starts the season in the pen. I'm guessing Ponson will start in the pen. Our 7th is probably Brett Tomko Jr. *er* Adam Wainright.

 

I don't disagree that they are still the team to beat, but they are beatable this year moreso than the previous two.

I am in complete agreement with you. All I was saying is that pre 2004, nodoby was giving them much of a chance and they dominated. I'm just trying to get you to admit that in addition to them having a chance of finishing sub 90 wins, they have a chance of winning 100 again. I think they'll be right in the middle of that, but either is possible.

 

I think about zero is a correct analysis of those odds considering who is on the staff. Given normal luck, the Cardinals will likely lose a couple starters for some time this year. Haven't Duncan and LaRussa been known to exhaust a pitcher or two?

[wolf stansson]

So you're saying its not possible? That's just dumb. It would be possible for the Cubs staff to do it. Neither are likely, but both are technically possible.

[stitchface]

So you're saying its not possible? That's just dumb. It would be possible for the Cubs staff to do it. Neither are likely, but both are technically possible.

 

about zero is not zero. its slightly greater than zero but not much.

[indifferent]

So you're saying its not possible? That's just dumb. It would be possible for the Cubs staff to do it. Neither are likely, but both are technically possible.

 

about zero is not zero. its slightly greater than zero but not much.

 

Just give it up that zero was an exaggeration and we'll be good to go. Many great people have admitted such tales and still held their stature.

[stitchface]

So you're saying its not possible? That's just dumb. It would be possible for the Cubs staff to do it. Neither are likely, but both are technically possible.

 

about zero is not zero. its slightly greater than zero but not much.

 

Just give it up that zero was an exaggeration and we'll be good to go. Many great people have admitted such tales and still held their stature.

no, I said about zero. it means what it means. y'all are trying to make an argument where there isn't one.

[FergieJ31]

I hate these stories about how THIS is the year the Cardinals are supposed to falter. This is the third straight year now. I think rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated, judging from their on-field performance.

 

And someone always uses the same tired "falling Cards" pun :roll:

[indifferent]

I hate these stories about how THIS is the year the Cardinals are supposed to falter. This is the third straight year now. I think rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated, judging from their on-field performance.

 

And someone always uses the same tired "falling Cards" pun :roll:

 

I think that's the point Wolf was making. The Cards were ranked third in the division by most of the pundits in 04. They're returning their starting rotation with the exception of Morris who can no longer be regarded as an anchor to any staff. What exactly have the Cards done to downgrade that significantly vs. other teams moves in NL Central?

[stitchface]

I don't think anyone really disagrees with him. The only reason the Cards won't win the Central will be luck.

[wolf stansson]

I don't think anyone really disagrees with him. The only reason the Cards won't win the Central will be luck.

Or injury prone players falling apart: Izzy, Carp, Spivey, etc.

[stitchface]

I don't think anyone really disagrees with him. The only reason the Cards won't win the Central will be luck.

Or injury prone players falling apart: Izzy, Carp, Spivey, etc.

 

I was lumping that with luck since it largely can't be controlled. Rolen's health is really the key. If he doesn't come back strong, they could be considerably weaker at three infield positions. Edmonds also needs to continue to produce. I would protect them to win 95ish but the possiibility of collapse is there.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I hate these stories about how THIS is the year the Cardinals are supposed to falter. This is the third straight year now. I think rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated, judging from their on-field performance.

 

And someone always uses the same tired "falling Cards" pun :roll:

 

I think that's the point Wolf was making. The Cards were ranked third in the division by most of the pundits in 04. They're returning their starting rotation with the exception of Morris who can no longer be regarded as an anchor to any staff. What exactly have the Cards done to downgrade that significantly vs. other teams moves in NL Central?

 

they didn't pick up jockstrap jones. NL Central winners yet again. :evil:

[FergieJ31]

I hate these stories about how THIS is the year the Cardinals are supposed to falter. This is the third straight year now. I think rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated, judging from their on-field performance.

 

And someone always uses the same tired "falling Cards" pun :roll:

 

I think that's the point Wolf was making. The Cards were ranked third in the division by most of the pundits in 04. They're returning their starting rotation with the exception of Morris who can no longer be regarded as an anchor to any staff. What exactly have the Cards done to downgrade that significantly vs. other teams moves in NL Central?

 

Yeah and Anthony Reyes penciled in to be the guy to replace Morris... if he comes close to the numbers he put up in 14 IP last year ... ugh :( I don't wanna think about it.

 

(And just when the Cubs finally solved MattyMo last two years, pounding the stuffing out of him -- great, he has to leave and go to SF.)

 

The Cardinals are the only team in the NL Central that I cannot imagine finishing last under any realistic scenario.

[wolf stansson]

they didn't pick up jockstrap jones. NL Central winners yet again. :evil:

We got the NL's equivalent.

[SouthSideRyan]

I hate these stories about how THIS is the year the Cardinals are supposed to falter. This is the third straight year now. I think rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated, judging from their on-field performance.

 

And someone always uses the same tired "falling Cards" pun :roll:

 

I think that's the point Wolf was making. The Cards were ranked third in the division by most of the pundits in 04. They're returning their starting rotation with the exception of Morris who can no longer be regarded as an anchor to any staff. What exactly have the Cards done to downgrade that significantly vs. other teams moves in NL Central?

 

Yeah and Anthony Reyes penciled in to be the guy to replace Morris... if he comes close to the numbers he put up in 14 IP last year ... ugh :( I don't wanna think about it.

 

(And just when the Cubs finally solved MattyMo last two years, pounding the stuffing out of him -- great, he has to leave and go to SF.)

 

The Cardinals are the only team in the NL Central that I cannot imagine finishing last under any realistic scenario.

 

I have a real hard time seeing the Braves, Mets, or Phillies finishing in last.

[FergieJ31]

The Cardinals are the only team in the NL Central that I cannot imagine finishing last under any realistic scenario.

 

I have a real hard time seeing the Braves, Mets, or Phillies finishing in last.

 

NL East, but I agree.

 

In the West ... clearly the Dodgers. I'm not sold on any of the moves the Giants made this off-season.

[SouthSideRyan]

Whoops, didn't read the Central in there the first time around.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

BP apparently doesn't have the highest opinions of what this team may bring either.

 

Link.

 

The article has some good observations, but these are my favorite.

 

Suddenly, away went Larry Walker, Reggie Sanders, Mark Grudzielanek (who, along with Sanders, was signed by the … Royals?), Matt Morris, Julian Tavarez, so on. These weren’t exactly Jim Edmonds-quality guys, but it seemed strange to be doing such large-scale subtraction on a team that didn’t seem in much need of rebuilding. But we could still handle that; we lost Mike Matheny, and every male Cardinals fan secretly believes that if they had caught a break or two, they could have had Mike Matheny’s life (and they’re probably not that far off). We’re sentimental, but we’re realists.

 

But then came the final straw: the “reinforcements.” Notorious lollygagger Juan Encarnacion was signed. For three years. Junior Spivey is almost certain to be confused with Pokey Reese by every Cardinals fan. Braden Looper exists solely for Mets fans to make fun of us. And, the piece de resistance: the signing of Sidney Ponson to a one year deal. Never mind his tendency toward troubles with the bottle, or that 6.21 ERA; we think it’s only a matter of time before a DUI arrest in Clayton turns wrong, and he accidentally eats the breathalyzer. But hey: he has hair now.

 

I still love the Ponson eating the breathalyzer comment! :lmao:

[jjgman21]

I don't think anyone really disagrees with him. The only reason the Cards won't win the Central will be luck.

Or injury prone players falling apart: Izzy, Carp, Spivey, etc.

 

well I have some time on my hands tonight, so I think its time we started the annual 'digging through the stats to rationalize (one team is just as good as the other / one team is clearly better)' debate.

 

I'm a cubs fan, and I am going to stick to my guns. in 2003 I argued the Cubs were just as good as the Cards, in 2004 I argued the Cubs were better than the Cards, and in 2005 I argued the Cubs were just as good as the Cards. this year, surprise surprise, I think the Cubs are just as good as the Cards. I think they will battle for the division.

 

if luck were even the past couple of years, the races would have been alot closer. the Cards have been lucky. you can say that the Cards had injuries too last year so they were unlucky, but that doesn't dismiss the luck they had when the replacements for the injured performed far better than could have been predicted, or their entire staff doing as well or better than can be predicted. when supposing equal luck, and comparing what can be expected out of each team , the difference between the two teams is small.

 

I don't think that anyone can disagree that the Cubs should see improvements in just about all aspects of the game. Not as much as all us Cubs fans would have liked, but improvement nonetheless. contrary to your belief that only the Cards pen will be worse, I believe a case can also be made that the Cards have gotten worse in just about all aspects of the game, except maybe defense where I think they will be better.

 

first off, offense. let me start out by pointing this out. the Cards record last year: 38 games over .500. the Cards record last year when Larry Walker wasn't playing: 3 over .500. now I will concede that most of those games the Cards had Sanders too. but just because you will have Rolen back does not mean the Cards will be nearly as deep or consistent as they were last year.

 

I went through the Cards offense month by month and found, even if the numbers showed the Cards did worse at several positions than they might have hoped (lf, rf, 3b) that every single month but September, the Cards were getting 800+ OPS out of at least 5 slots in the lineup. it was amazing how one guy would get hot and help carry the offense, and replacement players routinely came in and played as well as the regulars. now some of this is attributable to LaRussa and Jocketty, but in large part it is just plain luck

 

 

April - Pujols/Rolen/Grudz/Edmonds/Sanders all over .800, Walker at .788

May - Eckstein/Pujols/Grudz/Edmonds/Sanders - Walker and Rolen are above 800, but both are injured. no worries, Mabry is well over 800 in 66 ABs

June - Pujols/Sanders/Edmonds (64 ab)/Nunez (64 ab)/Walker (49 AB) - this months it's Seabols turn, over 800 in 41 abs. Taguchi and Molina have virtually full months play over 788.

July - Pujols/Edmonds/Nunez/Walker (47 abs)/Sanders (25 abs) - Cards are in trouble because both their corner outfielders are down. no worries: Mabry/ J Rod/Luna replace with 44/42/18 abs over 800

August - Eckstein/Pujols/Taguchi/Edmonds/Grudz - Luna chips in with 49 abs over 800

Sept - Eckstein/Pujols/Edmonds/Walker (42)/J Rod (27)/Gall (19)

 

now I know this doesn't tell the whole story, but it gives an idea of how consistent and deep the Cards lineup was. it's easy to predict the Cards to have three players consistently above 800 each month this year, but where are all these other red hot months going to come from this year? will Eckstein have three .835+ ops months to help carry the team? will Spivey have three .852+ months? will the Cards corner outfielders generate .788+ ops virtually every single month like they did last year, and often well above .900? not likely with that group. between lesser players, and the unlikelihood that every injury and slump will not disrupt the offense like last year, the Cards offense will probably not be anywhere near as good as it was. in other words, the suggestion that the scrap heaps that Jocketty brought in performing to the same level as last year is not unprecedented, but highly unlikely.

 

the Cubs on the other hand broke down like this

 

A - Burn/Lee/Aram/Neifi (68)/Dubois (26)/Walker (21)

M - Aram/Lee/Barrett (66)

J - Lee/Burn/Aram/Walk/Holla/ Hairston at 793 (37 ab)

J - Aram/Lee/Barrett (73)/Murton (34)/Blanco (29) - Walker and Burn were above 790 in a full month of work.

A - Lee/Walk/Neifi/Barrett (69)/Garciaparra (68)/Aram at 795

S - Garciaparra/Lee/Murton/Walker (69)

 

I think the Cubs can expect above 800 production out of two positions each month of the year. it is not unreasonable to expect these changes:

2B - Cubs had 3, with Walker injured two months. expect 4

SS - Cubs had 3 (I'm counting Neifi's April here. he actually split time between SS and 2b in April) . expect 1

3B - a full year of Aram gives the Cubs 2 more

CF - Cubs had none. expect 1

corner OF - - Cubs had 5 (counting Burnitz's 794), plus two hot half months out of Dubois and Murton. expect 7

C - Cubs had three. expect 4, based on this: Michael Barrett is the real deal. he had an OPS of .824 last year. without the most flookishly unlucky streak of hitting I have ever seen in my life in April, he's a .900 ops batter. (not sure where to get these stats, but compare his line drive % with his BABIP in April and you will see what I mean)

 

And a side note: this is calculated accounting for Baker's bafoonary. proper management could get an extra month of 800 ops out of 2nd, SS, RF, and maybe LF.

 

I think it is pretty clear that the Cards are not as deep and won't be as consistent, while the Cubs will be more consistent offensively and not as dependant on 3-4 to score runs. the Cards will still be better offensively, but the gap will close significantly.

 

Not that I don't disagree that the Cards have regressed, but according to the "experts" and most of the understandably and appropriately biased people on this board, they've regressed each of the last 2 seasons.

 

first, I don't think any informed people have said the Cardinals regressed the past two years. nobody thought the Cards would be bad in 2004. they were picked third because the Cubs and the Astros were predicted to be two of the best pitching staffs in the history of baseball, and for good reason. turned out, the Cards had five starters all perform better than they probably could have ever dreamed of.

 

and few rational people thought the Cards had regressed in 2005. they got rid of their worst pitcher, looked to have Larry Walker for a full season, and a probably wash up the middle. other than that there were few changes.

 

second, I know mine is somewhat arbitrary analysis, but it does show an aspect of how the Cards probably will regress. the conclusion is the same as all the "experts," all the biased people (like me), and most of the unbiased people. the Cards have significantly regressed offensively. in fact, I think only understandably biased people like yourself and the uninformed would say otherwise.

[wolf stansson]

in fact, I think only understandably biased people like yourself and the uninformed would say otherwise.

You did have some time on your hand. I just skimmed, but caught the above statement. The Cardinals took significant hits in the outfield and second base offensively. They massively upgraded (assuming he is healthy which by all accounts he is) with Rolen over Nunez. Spivey could be better than Grudz last year, but more than likely he'll be worse. Encarnacion will never put up an .800+ ops like Walker did last year when healthy. Bigbie/Taguchi/Rodriguez won't replace Sanders either. Our bullpen is worse as well. That said we are still probably a 90+ win team. 90-95ish.