do the cardinals ever lose?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Yeah, that's it, we've just been really lucky since 2000. :roll:

 

If that's all you have to add, maybe you shouldn't.

[treebird]

ig-nore

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Seriously, can we start a petition to get rid of the rolleyes or something

 

maybe auto-ban someone who uses it towards another person

[Careless]

unbelievable, cards and reds both set team records for most wins in april.

[wolf stansson]

I recently posted in the baseball discussion thread about the schedules and how much more difficult the Cubs is than the Cards. Twins/Sox instead of 6 against the Royals. extra games vs. difficult NL teams instead of extra games vs. Colorado and the Nats.

 

late last season I posted how it seems the Cardinals always seem to miss the best pitching of various teams and have lot's of games vs. the bottom of rotations. of course it was scoffed at, and I never bothered to look to see if that were the case. let's take a look at what's been happening early on and see who the Cards are facing in the various series, fully conceding that the early numbers are reflective of the fact that they faced the Cardinals:

 

Pilly - first series of the year. only makes sense that they see the Phils top 3.

 

Cubs - granted, they've had to face the red hot Maddux twice. they also managed to have 6 games against the Cubs early on before either Wood or Prior were even expected back, much less actually back. Z owns them, and they only have to face him once. other than that, they get Rusch, Williams, and Marshall's ML debut.

 

Milwaukee - they miss the Brewers best pitcher, Capuano.

 

Cincy - the Reds worst starter by far this year is Dave Williams. Cards faced him, Cubs had two series agains the Reds, and never got to face him. instead the Cubs get the en fuego Aroyo twice (granted the Cards did too, and shelled him)

 

Pitt - bad pitching all around, but the two best have been Duke and Snell. the worst have been Santos and Perez. two series against the Bucs, 1 game against the best two, four against the worst two.

 

DC - miss Patterson, get another kid making his ML debut, the up-until-yesterday terrible Livan and the 10.80 ERA Zach Day.

 

 

 

then you got their typical:

 

Ponson, 3-0, 3.13

Looper, 1.54

Luna, .869

Spiezio, .962

JRod, .953

 

 

mix in about 30 seeing-eye and texas-league hits by Eckstein, a few corner calls here and there, a few bad calls going their way at just the right time on bang-bang plays, and what do you get?

 

 

 

don't get me wrong, the have had some good teams, but they are the luckiest team in baseball year after year after year. sometimes, between the players they field and the gold nugget buried in the nether regions, it's not 'will they ever lose a game' it's 'how do they ever lose a game.'

I think this is paranoia (but we've been over that haven't we), but even if what you say is true about us having easier interleague schedules and somehow missing all the best pitching of our opponents, it still isn't enoughf to account for the 15 games division leads over the past two years.

 

I know you are a Cubs fan and thus hesistant to give credit to the Cardinals but your posts are becoming even further out there.

[EastonBlues22]

I recently posted in the baseball discussion thread about the schedules and how much more difficult the Cubs is than the Cards. Twins/Sox instead of 6 against the Royals. extra games vs. difficult NL teams instead of extra games vs. Colorado and the Nats.

 

late last season I posted how it seems the Cardinals always seem to miss the best pitching of various teams and have lot's of games vs. the bottom of rotations. of course it was scoffed at, and I never bothered to look to see if that were the case. let's take a look at what's been happening early on and see who the Cards are facing in the various series, fully conceding that the early numbers are reflective of the fact that they faced the Cardinals:

 

Pilly - first series of the year. only makes sense that they see the Phils top 3.

 

Cubs - granted, they've had to face the red hot Maddux twice. they also managed to have 6 games against the Cubs early on before either Wood or Prior were even expected back, much less actually back. Z owns them, and they only have to face him once. other than that, they get Rusch, Williams, and Marshall's ML debut.

 

Milwaukee - they miss the Brewers best pitcher, Capuano.

 

Cincy - the Reds worst starter by far this year is Dave Williams. Cards faced him, Cubs had two series agains the Reds, and never got to face him. instead the Cubs get the en fuego Aroyo twice (granted the Cards did too, and shelled him)

 

Pitt - bad pitching all around, but the two best have been Duke and Snell. the worst have been Santos and Perez. two series against the Bucs, 1 game against the best two, four against the worst two.

 

DC - miss Patterson, get another kid making his ML debut, the up-until-yesterday terrible Livan and the 10.80 ERA Zach Day.

 

 

 

then you got their typical:

 

Ponson, 3-0, 3.13

Looper, 1.54

Luna, .869

Spiezio, .962

JRod, .953

 

 

mix in about 30 seeing-eye and texas-league hits by Eckstein, a few corner calls here and there, a few bad calls going their way at just the right time on bang-bang plays, and what do you get?

 

 

 

don't get me wrong, the have had some good teams, but they are the luckiest team in baseball year after year after year. sometimes, between the players they field and the gold nugget buried in the nether regions, it's not 'will they ever lose a game' it's 'how do they ever lose a game.'

Typically, if one team is facing a team's fourth or fifth starter...it's when they have someone towards the bottom of their own rotation going. This is why Maddox always seems to be pitching against Marquis and never against Carpenter. It's the nature of the game, and the offenses for both teams should have an advantage. Seeing as how the Cards have such a weak lineup and overrated pitching, it seems it should actually be an advantage for the other team. There is no great scheduling conspiracy.

 

Yes, some players are playing well...and a good number of those players have had great/very good success in the past (Ponson, Looper, Thompson, Rodriguez for example). Others have at least performed adequately in the past (Spezio, Luna). Only Miles' numbers can really be considered a big stretch...and that's really only in his walk rate. We'll see if that keeps up.

 

At the same time you have Edmonds and Encarnacion massively underperforming by even the most pessimistic projections. Marquis, Suppan and Isringhausen are off to poor starts. It's not all lucky roses, for the Cards and it's way early yet to start making judgements and projections about any particular player's season.

 

Same can be said for the Cubs (or anyo ther team for that matter)...Zambrano, ARam, Jones and several others will pick up their play. Maddux and Walker will cool. Everyone has overachievers and underachievers at this time of year...the sample size is under 100 AB/6 games started even for those playing every day.

 

It's just way too early for threads like this.

[SouthSideRyan]

Typically, if one team is facing a team's fourth or fifth starter...it's when they have someone towards the bottom of their own rotation going. This is why Maddox always seems to be pitching against Marquis and never against Carpenter.

 

I went over this on here 3-4 months ago, this simply isn't true. With off days, each starter winds up seeing each other spot in the rotation about the same amount.

[K-Town]

I recently posted in the baseball discussion thread about the schedules and how much more difficult the Cubs is than the Cards. Twins/Sox instead of 6 against the Royals. extra games vs. difficult NL teams instead of extra games vs. Colorado and the Nats.

 

late last season I posted how it seems the Cardinals always seem to miss the best pitching of various teams and have lot's of games vs. the bottom of rotations. of course it was scoffed at, and I never bothered to look to see if that were the case. let's take a look at what's been happening early on and see who the Cards are facing in the various series, fully conceding that the early numbers are reflective of the fact that they faced the Cardinals:

 

Pilly - first series of the year. only makes sense that they see the Phils top 3.

 

Cubs - granted, they've had to face the red hot Maddux twice. they also managed to have 6 games against the Cubs early on before either Wood or Prior were even expected back, much less actually back. Z owns them, and they only have to face him once. other than that, they get Rusch, Williams, and Marshall's ML debut.

 

Milwaukee - they miss the Brewers best pitcher, Capuano.

 

Cincy - the Reds worst starter by far this year is Dave Williams. Cards faced him, Cubs had two series agains the Reds, and never got to face him. instead the Cubs get the en fuego Aroyo twice (granted the Cards did too, and shelled him)

 

Pitt - bad pitching all around, but the two best have been Duke and Snell. the worst have been Santos and Perez. two series against the Bucs, 1 game against the best two, four against the worst two.

 

DC - miss Patterson, get another kid making his ML debut, the up-until-yesterday terrible Livan and the 10.80 ERA Zach Day.

 

 

 

then you got their typical:

 

Ponson, 3-0, 3.13

Looper, 1.54

Luna, .869

Spiezio, .962

JRod, .953

 

 

mix in about 30 seeing-eye and texas-league hits by Eckstein, a few corner calls here and there, a few bad calls going their way at just the right time on bang-bang plays, and what do you get?

 

 

 

don't get me wrong, the have had some good teams, but they are the luckiest team in baseball year after year after year. sometimes, between the players they field and the gold nugget buried in the nether regions, it's not 'will they ever lose a game' it's 'how do they ever lose a game.'

 

 

The Cards have the 2nd best ERA in the NL. Do you have a theory about them somehow facing the other teams' worst hitters at the most opportune times??

 

Come on. When you've got one of the best pitching staffs in baseball, baseball's best offensive force, and you play good defense..............you're going to win games. This "luck" theory is just bunk.

[Derwood]

the key to the Cardinals success (and the last season+ of the White Sox' success) is health.

 

All thing being equal, one might suggest that

 

Prior/Zambrano/Wood/Maddux/Marshall + Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez

 

is better than

 

Mulder/Carpenter/Marquis/Suppan/Ponson + Pujols and Edmonds

 

or

 

Buehrle/Garland/Vasquez/Contreras/Garcia + Konerko and Thome

 

The truth is, however, that the Cubs can't keep that combo on the field EVER while the other two teams seem to limit the injuries on their key players. The White Sox starting 5 started 152 games last year (with McCarthy getting the other 10 starts). When was the last time that Pujols was on the DL?

 

Dave Duncan is head, shoulders, hips and knees above Rothschild and it shows in many aspects of the game. His pitchers don't get injured, he makes bad/mediocre pitchers better (Carpenter, Marquis, Ponson) while Rothschild takes all-star quality pitchers and can't keep them healthy or consistent (Wood, Prior, Zambrano).

[RynoRules]

One of the differences I have identified is that the Cards seem to beat up on the Brewers and Reds, whereas we do not.

[illiniguy]

Was it me or did a Cardinals fan state that career minor leaguer John Rodriguez had success before so was thus predictable that he put up ops? Tony Womack has one year rejuvenation. Chris Carpenter becomes Cy Young. Yep seems about par for the course. Say when do you think Bo Hart will ever make it back up to the big leagues?

[LoneStarCubFan]

One of the differences I have identified is that the Cards seem to beat up on the Brewers and Reds, whereas we do not.

 

That's been a big difference. As has the fact they get six games against the Omaha Royals every freakin' year.

[wolf stansson]

That's been a big difference. As has the fact they get six games against the Omaha Royals every freakin' year.

Oh Lonestar, someday your team will heal. Have faith. It will be okay. Then you can stop making sad excuses.

 

6 games against the Royals - Say they instead played the White Sox and got swept 6 straight games each of the last two years. 98 and 94 wins respectively still win the division.

One of the differences I have identified is that the Cards seem to beat up on the Brewers and Reds, whereas we do not.

Yeah, usually good teams beat teams they are better than more than they lose to them over the course of the season.

[Andy]

That's been a big difference. As has the fact they get six games against the Omaha Royals every freakin' year.

Oh Lonestar, someday your team will heal. Have faith. It will be okay. Then you can stop making sad excuses.

 

6 games against the Royals - Say they instead played the White Sox and got swept 6 straight games each of the last two years. 98 and 94 wins respectively still win the division.

One of the differences I have identified is that the Cards seem to beat up on the Brewers and Reds, whereas we do not.

Yeah, usually good teams beat teams they are better than more than they lose to them over the course of the season.

Whereas the Cubs beat STL and Houston last year and lost to just about everybody else. :x

[Ding Dong Johnson]

6 games against the Royals - Say they instead played the White Sox and got swept 6 straight games each of the last two years. 98 and 94 wins respectively still win the division.

 

This is your last warning: stop using statistics and logic to prove your point. Dang Cards fans.

[BigSlick]

That's been a big difference. As has the fact they get six games against the Omaha Royals every freakin' year.

Oh Lonestar, someday your team will heal. Have faith. It will be okay. Then you can stop making sad excuses.

 

6 games against the Royals - Say they instead played the White Sox and got swept 6 straight games each of the last two years. 98 and 94 wins respectively still win the division.

One of the differences I have identified is that the Cards seem to beat up on the Brewers and Reds, whereas we do not.

Yeah, usually good teams beat teams they are better than more than they lose to them over the course of the season.

 

Except the Cubs, who went 10-6 against the Cardinals but somehow managed to be below .500 combined against the Reds and Brewers.

 

Its really quite remarkable how "un-clutch" the Cubs seem to be.

[EastonBlues22]

Was it me or did a Cardinals fan state that career minor leaguer John Rodriguez had success before so was thus predictable that he put up ops?

 

Yes, I said he's had success before...he's shown the he can hit both in the majors (career .319/.400/.465) and in the minors (career .271/.355/.475).

 

You can argue that his MLB ABs are insignificant, but his minor league numbers are more than credible as his walk rates have always been solid and his power numbers are there. He's put up very good AAA numbers since 2004. The reasons he's been in the minor leagues the last few years are because of his defensive and baserunning fundamentals. He's always been able to swing the bat.

 

And, just for clarification, I never said his MLB success was predictable. I'm just pointing out that with his past history his current success should not be as shocking/lucky as the original poster is making it out to be. It's not like this is Mike Matheny putting up an .800+ OPS...

[EastonBlues22]

Typically, if one team is facing a team's fourth or fifth starter...it's when they have someone towards the bottom of their own rotation going. This is why Maddox always seems to be pitching against Marquis and never against Carpenter.

 

I went over this on here 3-4 months ago, this simply isn't true. With off days, each starter winds up seeing each other spot in the rotation about the same amount.

That's fine...my greater point was that it's silly that anyone thinks that one team gets to routinely skip every other team's top pitchers.

 

BTW: Your research makes it even more interesting that, as a Cardinal, Marquis has never faced a starter other than Maddux when pitching against the Cubs. Pretty weird, huh?

[SouthSideRyan]

Typically, if one team is facing a team's fourth or fifth starter...it's when they have someone towards the bottom of their own rotation going. This is why Maddox always seems to be pitching against Marquis and never against Carpenter.

 

I went over this on here 3-4 months ago, this simply isn't true. With off days, each starter winds up seeing each other spot in the rotation about the same amount.

That's fine...my greater point was that it's silly that anyone thinks that one team gets to routinely skip every other team's top pitchers.

 

BTW: Your research makes it even more interesting that, as a Cardinal, Marquis has never faced a starter other than Maddux when pitching against the Cubs. Pretty weird, huh?

 

Except when he faced Zambrano last year. Marquis's 3 starts against Maddux in '04 are hardly evidence of the gotcha you implied. Ask Wolf(I think), he was the one the subject came up with. With scattered off days throughout the season, injuries, and rearranged rotation due to rainouts, minor league call ups, all star break, etc. it only makes sense that pitchers would see different slots in the rotation all year.

[EastonBlues22]

Except when he faced Zambrano last year. Marquis's 3 starts against Maddux in '04 are hardly evidence of the gotcha you implied. Ask Wolf(I think), he was the one the subject came up with. With scattered off days throughout the season, injuries, and rearranged rotation due to rainouts, minor league call ups, all star break, etc. it only makes sense that pitchers would see different slots in the rotation all year.

No "gotcha" intended... One random set of occurrances is hardly evidence for anything. I believe what you posted (I haven't had time to dig up the post yet, but it makes sense and you're not one to just spout off about stuff you haven't researched). I meant simply what I said, that it was an interesting tidbit.

 

As far as where my info came from, one of the announcers commented about it during a Cubs game this year...I guess they had some bad info if there was a start against someone else as recently as last year. Maybe he meant all his decisions (or losses) were against Maddux, or something to that effect, and he just misspoke.

 

Or maybe he just had no clue what he was talking about...I can't remember if it was Hrabosky or not. Hehehe.

[anemic offense]

everytime i see the highlights, they're always winning. this team could lose everyone, bring up the AA team, and win 100 games. there's some sort of anti-curse on these guys. they simply don't lose, they have three hitters, three.

 

how much money would the cubs need to spend to catch them? 300 mil?

 

I've said this a million times. They're not NEARLY as good as people tend to make them out to be on paper, yet they continue to execute and win games. With some of the players they've got it's absolutely nauseating.

 

Then again, what did you expect?? This is a team who picked a Cy Young winner off the scrap heap, found a Hall of Famer in the 12th round, coaxed career years from the likes of Pinetar Kline, Pinetar Tavares, and Tony Womack, got great production from David Eckstein, have AAA players prosper every time they bring them up, and have had a healthy rotation the last couple of seasons. If that's not luck I don't know what is.

 

On the same token though one has to give Jocketty, as well as LaRussa and his staff a lot of credit. One could essentially say this team is the antithesis of the Cubs. They are fundamentally sound, receive clutch performances, and make out like bandits on every FA signing. Regardless of how I feel sentimentally, I have to acknowledge they must be doing something right.

[wolf stansson]

I've said this a million times. They're not NEARLY as good as people tend to make them out to be on paper, yet they continue to execute and win games.

Hey, I've got some trivia for you (Trivia that does a pretty darn good job of indicating win/loss performance and expectation)!

 

Q: What team has the best run differential in the National League?

 

A: The St. Louis Cardinals.

 

 

 

Stop acting like it is smoke and mirrors.

[CubsInNC]

I didn't think he was making it sound like smoke and mirrors. I think he was expressing frustration that the team is not as good as many "experts" claim on paper, yet day in, and day out they go out, play good fundamental baseball, get on base, drive in runs, and hold their opponents when they need to.

 

To those of us following this team, that's incredibly frustrating. We're nowhere near as good as many "experts" claim on paper. And we're not executing. At all.

 

St. Louis is still a good team. But some of the players respected on paper as "really, really good" aren't as good (now) as the experts claim, but in their prime might have been. Some are better (read: Pujols) because there aren't words good enough to describe his play.

[wolf stansson]

I think he was expressing frustration that the team is not as good as many "experts" claim on paper, yet day in, and day out they go out, play good fundamental baseball, get on base, drive in runs, and hold their opponents when they need to.

Well if a team does that, it seems to me they probably start to look better on "paper" (whatever that means).

 

I think that means that the Cardinals don't have a lot of big name guys that jump out and grab you. I don't get that. We have 4 all-stars in our everyday lineup (whether deservedly so or not - Edmonds/Eckstein last year), the reigning Cy Young winner, the pitcher with the most wins in baseball since 2001, the two time executive or the year, the second or third winningest manager of all time, and a guy playing first base who has a chance if he stays healthy and stays consistent to break every major offensive record other than stolen bases and hits.

 

Maybe it is a case of them not getting ESPN love or people underrating them, but I don't see how they aren't good "on paper."

[Ding Dong Johnson]

a guy playing first base who has a chance if he stays healthy and stays consistent to break every major offensive record other than stolen bases and hits

 

He is such a weenie if he can't get them all.