Can we really complain about the Cardinals "luck"?

[BigSlick]

Hahaha oh... regardless, I didn't think of them as a .500 team this year anyways.

Neither did I

 

I thought they would be way worse

[Andy]

I think it's been beared out that Dave Duncan probably has at least as much to do with the Cardinals' overperforming than La Russa, probably more. TLR seems to have some sort of knack for keeping bad teams afloat, but he's also not a very good in-game manager.

[TruffleShuffle]

I think it's been beared out that Dave Duncan probably has at least as much to do with the Cardinals' overperforming than La Russa, probably more.

 

yeah people always talk about duncan, but who's their hitting coach? he turned ryan ludwick into the five best hitters in the game and turned aaron miles and skippy schumaker into good hitters.

[GhostRunner]

yeah people always talk about duncan, but who's their hitting coach? he turned ryan ludwick into the five best hitters in the game and turned aaron miles and skippy schumaker into good hitters.

Hal McRae

[Andy]

I think it's been beared out that Dave Duncan probably has at least as much to do with the Cardinals' overperforming than La Russa, probably more.

 

yeah people always talk about duncan, but who's their hitting coach? he turned ryan ludwick into the five best hitters in the game and turned aaron miles and skippy schumaker into good hitters.

I'm still waiting to hear what they pulled off with Tony Womack in 2004.

[BCVM22]

I'm still waiting to hear what they pulled off with Tony Womack in 2004.

 

I believe the technical term is "a miracle."

[jaydee]

yes, we can still complain. Our players are no where near as improbable as theirs

 

I think the seasons from Dempster and Edmonds are way more improbable than the seasons guys like Ludwick and Lohse are having.

not really....lohse has sucked his entire career. edmonds and dempster have shown a lot more than ludwick and lohse in the past

[JimSorgi]

I think it's been beared out that Dave Duncan probably has at least as much to do with the Cardinals' overperforming than La Russa, probably more.

 

yeah people always talk about duncan, but who's their hitting coach? he turned ryan ludwick into the five best hitters in the game and turned aaron miles and skippy schumaker into good hitters.

Aaron Miles has not been a good hitter for the Cardinals.

[wolf stansson]

I think it's been beared out that Dave Duncan probably has at least as much to do with the Cardinals' overperforming than La Russa, probably more. TLR seems to have some sort of knack for keeping bad teams afloat, but he's also not a very good in-game manager.

This is a weird statement to make about the third winningest manager of all time. His consistency with every team he's been with is amazing. You and others may not like some of his tactics, but it's really hard to argue with the results.

[TruffleShuffle]

I think it's been beared out that Dave Duncan probably has at least as much to do with the Cardinals' overperforming than La Russa, probably more.

 

yeah people always talk about duncan, but who's their hitting coach? he turned ryan ludwick into the five best hitters in the game and turned aaron miles and skippy schumaker into good hitters.

Aaron Miles has not been a good hitter for the Cardinals.

 

.266 EqA is pretty good for a shortstop, especially one whose EqA coming into this year was .240.

 

but really, my favorite part about this year's cardinal team is that despite performing over projections pretty much across the board, they're still very unlikely to make the playoffs. that just goes to show what a talent disparity there is between the cubs/brewers and the cardinals.

[Andy]

I think it's been beared out that Dave Duncan probably has at least as much to do with the Cardinals' overperforming than La Russa, probably more. TLR seems to have some sort of knack for keeping bad teams afloat, but he's also not a very good in-game manager.

This is a weird statement to make about the third winningest manager of all time. His consistency with every team he's been with is amazing. You and others may not like some of his tactics, but it's really hard to argue with the results.

'Third winningest manager of all time' smacks of using pitcher's W-L to me. You can win a lot of games with Canseco, McGwire and Pujols in your lineups.

[haltz]

I'm still waiting to hear what they pulled off with Tony Womack in 2004.

He had a BABIP 30 pts higher than his career mark. His BA followed. His ISOP was down a tick, and his BB% was right at his career rate. These things happen once in a while. It's lucky that it happened for the Cardinals while he was on the team, but a 91 OPS+ second baseman is such a small part of that 2004 offense that it's hardly worth talking about.

[atcfootball]

I'm not sold on the Cardinals being lucky! I may be the only one in the world who thinks this, but I think they just take more chances and that makes them seem to be lucky! I mean do you think for one second the Cubs would have taken the risk of putting Ludwick in left two years ago? It seems the Cubs as an organization don't seem to keen on letting there own farm players play, let alone another teams! The Cubs spend money and seem more interested in "proven" MLB players (See: Soriano, Fukudome, Johnson and Edmonds) and don't really seem interested in young kids in or out of our organization (See: Pie, Hoffpauir). It seems while the Cards are willing to take a chance (high risk/high reward) the Cubs seem more interested in just going with proven production.

I'm very sure it has to do with GM, scouts and organization philosophy as well! Take the example of Fukudome and Ludwick. The Cards were more inclined to give the OF position to a young man who has been injured BUT has a proven record in the minors as a power hitter! The Cubs on the other hand elected to spend 48M and import virtually the same age player as Ludwick from Japan. I'm NOT saying it was a bad move either way, but I think it just goes to show the different ideas on how to run a baseball club between the Cubs and Cards. The Cubs had "kind" of an idea what they would get (I'm not sure he has lived up to all of them) from Fukudome, the Cards had no real idea on Ludwick, just that he has done well in the minors. So any output at all would be "above" what was expected, thus making it seem lucky!

In the end the Cards just take more chances with players, the Cubs take less chances, just try to bank on the player preforming at "normal" levels. I'm sure for every Ludwick the Cards take a chance on there is a Villone, Lopez and Izturis that don't work out so well for them!

[TruffleShuffle]

I'm sure for every Ludwick the Cards take a chance on there is a Villone, Lopez and Izturis that don't work out so well for them!

 

felipe lopez has a .901 OPS since joining the cards.

Edited August 19, 2008 by TruffleShuffle

[SouthSideRyan]

 

felipe lopez has a .901 OPS since joining the cards.

 

In like 7 ABs.

[TruffleShuffle]

I'm sure for every Ludwick the Cards take a chance on there is a Villone, Lopez and Izturis that don't work out so well for them!

 

felipe lopez has a .901 OPS since joining the cards.

 

In like 7 ABs.

 

32. you were close.

[atcfootball]

He has 32 AB's, are we really going to sample that number and say "oh the Cards are lucky again?" I sure hope we are not going to do that! When I put him into the list of "Villone, Lopez and Izturis" it was assumed the readers would follow the thinking of the post (that not all Cards transactions are "lucky") rather then look for one minor issue a .901 OPS in 32 AB's.

[atcfootball]

If we are not going to follow the logic and line of thinking in the post, I'm sure in my spear time I can look at the stats and produce a list of Cards players (over the last 4 years) and place them into a "lucky" section and a "failure" section for you. However you must provide me with a statistical measurement to use to determine "lucky", "expected" and "failure" so we can see who meets them section based on your own definition. I'm sure it would be different for everyone, since we are not just following simple logic and want to single out 1 sentence in a group of about 30 or so (the 30 in this situation doesn't represent an exact count, but more a rough estimate).

[TruffleShuffle]

He has 32 AB's, are we really going to sample that number and say "oh the Cards are lucky again?" I sure hope we are not going to do that! When I put him into the list of "Villone, Lopez and Izturis" it was assumed the readers would follow the thinking of the post (that not all Cards transactions are "lucky") rather then look for one minor issue a .901 OPS in 32 AB's.

 

well i'm not even sure why you listed him in the first place. he hasn't played much for the cards, and when he's played he's been very good.

[UMFan83]

Ronny Cedeno's first 32 ABs this year (37 PA): .375 .444 .563 1.007

 

Since: .252 .312 .323 .635

[atcfootball]

Are you kidding me? What difference dose it make who is on the list? Do you have a list fetish and once you see a list you forget everything prior to that and focus only on "the list"?

 

Here:

Villone, Lopez and Izturis

Delete "Lopez"

 

add any of the following from 07 (if any of the below players are in the "lucky" section I'm sorry I posted them please feel free to remove as you see fit).

Scott Spiezio

Gary Bennett

Kelly Stinnett

Miguel Cairo

Preston Wilson

Kip Wells

Russell Branyan (Had 32 AB in 07 - Seems to be magic number to confirm success/failure)

Brad Thompson

Mike Maroth

Brian Falkenborg

Randy Keisler

 

Will this list be more palpable to your fetish and the post itself? :banghead: Would any of the following names on the list change anything within the post itself? Okay, I can agree with you that it would provide better supporting evidence as to the theory I provided, however you don't seem like a lazy person .901 OPS, 32 AB's, you seem willing to dig into the stats yourself! So I'm sure you can provide yourself "a list" of players to support or argue against the theory I have provided.

 

Really, I have come here for 2 years now, I read the board every day! However you know what stops me from posting here for the most part? I have no problem with people having a different opinion then me, in fact to the best of my knowledge I kind of feel like that is what this is about, post your opinion and talk about it with other people!

However in the past I have not posted for the simple fact that "some" people feel like it's there duty to take one word of an entire post and focus on that one thing! Dose the fact that "Lopez" has made THE LIST, diminish the point of the post for others to talk about? It don't matter who is on "the list", here completely remove the list of 3 players, it don't change the post being about: Why I think the Cards "seem" to be more lucky (but they really are not), they just take more chances on unknown players! This is I'm sure due to a number of reasons; GM thoughts over the years, player development, scouts, organizational philosophy, money "the list" could go on!

[wolf stansson]

I think it's been beared out that Dave Duncan probably has at least as much to do with the Cardinals' overperforming than La Russa, probably more. TLR seems to have some sort of knack for keeping bad teams afloat, but he's also not a very good in-game manager.

This is a weird statement to make about the third winningest manager of all time. His consistency with every team he's been with is amazing. You and others may not like some of his tactics, but it's really hard to argue with the results.

'Third winningest manager of all time' smacks of using pitcher's W-L to me. You can win a lot of games with Canseco, McGwire and Pujols in your lineups.

3 players in 30 years alone is enough to make you the 3rd winningest manager of all time? Isn't juggling egos of star players, deciding who to build your lineup around and player acquisition not part of what makes a manager good?

 

Say what you want about your personal distaste for him, but it's impossible to say he isn't an excellent manager.

[Guest]

I think it's been beared out that Dave Duncan probably has at least as much to do with the Cardinals' overperforming than La Russa, probably more. TLR seems to have some sort of knack for keeping bad teams afloat, but he's also not a very good in-game manager.

This is a weird statement to make about the third winningest manager of all time. His consistency with every team he's been with is amazing. You and others may not like some of his tactics, but it's really hard to argue with the results.

'Third winningest manager of all time' smacks of using pitcher's W-L to me. You can win a lot of games with Canseco, McGwire and Pujols in your lineups.

3 players in 30 years alone is enough to make you the 3rd winningest manager of all time? Isn't juggling egos of star players, deciding who to build your lineup around and player acquisition not part of what makes a manager good?

 

Say what you want about your personal distaste for him, but it's impossible to say he isn't an excellent manager.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure how you could legitimately argue that LaRussa isn't a good overall manager. Like you said, three players aren't going to make the difference for a baseball team. This isn't basketball.

 

I don't particularly like the guy (his obsession with retaliation for HBP's is ridiculous) and I'm certainly going to make DUI jokes, but he has to be considered a good manager.