Reminder to Cardinal Scrubs - YOU'RE SCRUBS

[1908]

Chicago Cubs - 16 games out of first place

Chicago Cubs - 3 Games under .500 and falling (54-57)

 

I also like how he calls these guys bums and mediocre minor leaguers. If youre so good why aren't you playing center field for the cubs?

What's the point of putting the record in there?

To troll.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Just wanted to take the time to remind some Cardinals of something:

 

Abraham Nunez - you're a mediocre at best bum with a career line of .238/.306/.316. You're not a guy who is supposed to be putting up a line of .316/.375/.435 or whatever you'll be at after tonight. Try to understand that you suck, you've sucked every year of your career and there's no logical reason that you should have stopped sucking after proving your suckitude over 6+ major league seasons.

 

J-Rod: You are a career minor leaguer, not even a prospect really. What the hell is up with the 1.100 OPS since you got called up!?!?!?

 

David Eckstein - your career high in walks is 45 (in 152 games)... so how do you have 41 in 97 games now? At least the good news is that you seem to have forgotten how to draw walks over the past 10 games.

 

Chris Carpenter - Career ERA+ of 102. Career best of 116. All of a sudden last year your ERA+ is 121 the first year off of surgery, and now you're contending for a Cy Young? Where the hell did that come from?

 

Al Reyes - Journeyman and guy who has spent your career between AAA and the majors, with a career ERA of 3.92 and a remarkable lack of major league quality pitching up through age 32. All of a sudden you turn into a big part of a solid bullpen, with an ERA under 3 and very good peripheral numbers (39 IP, 25 H, 14 BB, 42 K)

 

Julian Tavarez - Career ERA of 4.32. Even in years when you pitched completely out of the bullpen, you routinely put up ERAs in the upper threes and sometimes worse. The year before coming to St. Louis your ERA was 3.66. All of a sudden at age 31 you figure it all out?!?!? ERA of 2.38 last year and 2.80 this year? Why?

 

Ray King and Randy Flores, I won't even get started on you losers. Jim Edmonds, you've been good for too many years, but I'd like to know where the increased durability, patience and power came from upon arriving in St. Louis. Is there a magical fountain of "play out your butt" somewhere near the Arch? If so, Jose Macias (you know, the guy with superior career numbers to Abraham Nunez before this season) would like to find it, as would the rest of the Cubs. If not, hopefully this post will serve as a reminder to you guys to start playing like the players you really are.

 

Chicago Cubs - 16 games out of first place

Chicago Cubs - 3 Games under .500 and falling (54-57)

 

I also like how he calls these guys bums and mediocre minor leaguers. If youre so good why aren't you playing center field for the cubs?

 

He has three total posts. Anyone think he'll get to four. I don't.

[mjohnson71]

Just wanted to take the time to remind some Cardinals of something:

 

Abraham Nunez - you're a mediocre at best bum with a career line of .238/.306/.316. You're not a guy who is supposed to be putting up a line of .316/.375/.435 or whatever you'll be at after tonight. Try to understand that you suck, you've sucked every year of your career and there's no logical reason that you should have stopped sucking after proving your suckitude over 6+ major league seasons.

 

J-Rod: You are a career minor leaguer, not even a prospect really. What the hell is up with the 1.100 OPS since you got called up!?!?!?

 

David Eckstein - your career high in walks is 45 (in 152 games)... so how do you have 41 in 97 games now? At least the good news is that you seem to have forgotten how to draw walks over the past 10 games.

 

Chris Carpenter - Career ERA+ of 102. Career best of 116. All of a sudden last year your ERA+ is 121 the first year off of surgery, and now you're contending for a Cy Young? Where the hell did that come from?

 

Al Reyes - Journeyman and guy who has spent your career between AAA and the majors, with a career ERA of 3.92 and a remarkable lack of major league quality pitching up through age 32. All of a sudden you turn into a big part of a solid bullpen, with an ERA under 3 and very good peripheral numbers (39 IP, 25 H, 14 BB, 42 K)

 

Julian Tavarez - Career ERA of 4.32. Even in years when you pitched completely out of the bullpen, you routinely put up ERAs in the upper threes and sometimes worse. The year before coming to St. Louis your ERA was 3.66. All of a sudden at age 31 you figure it all out?!?!? ERA of 2.38 last year and 2.80 this year? Why?

 

Ray King and Randy Flores, I won't even get started on you losers. Jim Edmonds, you've been good for too many years, but I'd like to know where the increased durability, patience and power came from upon arriving in St. Louis. Is there a magical fountain of "play out your butt" somewhere near the Arch? If so, Jose Macias (you know, the guy with superior career numbers to Abraham Nunez before this season) would like to find it, as would the rest of the Cubs. If not, hopefully this post will serve as a reminder to you guys to start playing like the players you really are.

 

Chicago Cubs - 16 games out of first place

Chicago Cubs - 3 Games under .500 and falling (54-57)

 

I also like how he calls these guys bums and mediocre minor leaguers. If youre so good why aren't you playing center field for the cubs?

 

He has three total posts. Anyone think he'll get to four. I don't.

 

He does have a point. :cry:

 

Although pigs will fly if LaRussa can keep this up far into the playoffs.

[nwg414]

Just wanted to take the time to remind some Cardinals of something:

 

Abraham Nunez - you're a mediocre at best bum with a career line of .238/.306/.316. You're not a guy who is supposed to be putting up a line of .316/.375/.435 or whatever you'll be at after tonight. Try to understand that you suck, you've sucked every year of your career and there's no logical reason that you should have stopped sucking after proving your suckitude over 6+ major league seasons.

 

J-Rod: You are a career minor leaguer, not even a prospect really. What the hell is up with the 1.100 OPS since you got called up!?!?!?

 

David Eckstein - your career high in walks is 45 (in 152 games)... so how do you have 41 in 97 games now? At least the good news is that you seem to have forgotten how to draw walks over the past 10 games.

 

Chris Carpenter - Career ERA+ of 102. Career best of 116. All of a sudden last year your ERA+ is 121 the first year off of surgery, and now you're contending for a Cy Young? Where the hell did that come from?

 

Al Reyes - Journeyman and guy who has spent your career between AAA and the majors, with a career ERA of 3.92 and a remarkable lack of major league quality pitching up through age 32. All of a sudden you turn into a big part of a solid bullpen, with an ERA under 3 and very good peripheral numbers (39 IP, 25 H, 14 BB, 42 K)

 

Julian Tavarez - Career ERA of 4.32. Even in years when you pitched completely out of the bullpen, you routinely put up ERAs in the upper threes and sometimes worse. The year before coming to St. Louis your ERA was 3.66. All of a sudden at age 31 you figure it all out?!?!? ERA of 2.38 last year and 2.80 this year? Why?

 

Ray King and Randy Flores, I won't even get started on you losers. Jim Edmonds, you've been good for too many years, but I'd like to know where the increased durability, patience and power came from upon arriving in St. Louis. Is there a magical fountain of "play out your butt" somewhere near the Arch? If so, Jose Macias (you know, the guy with superior career numbers to Abraham Nunez before this season) would like to find it, as would the rest of the Cubs. If not, hopefully this post will serve as a reminder to you guys to start playing like the players you really are.

 

Chicago Cubs - 16 games out of first place

Chicago Cubs - 3 Games under .500 and falling (54-57)

 

I also like how he calls these guys bums and mediocre minor leaguers. If youre so good why aren't you playing center field for the cubs?

 

He has three total posts. Anyone think he'll get to four. I don't.

 

He does have a point. :cry:

 

Although pigs will fly if LaRussa can keep this up far into the playoffs.

 

If pigs fly if TLR does this deep into the playoffs then what will happen if Baker manages to end the season with a winning record. Possibly a frozen hell?

[EastonBlues22]

To get back on topic...another possible factor that nobody has mentioned is that it could just be psychological.

 

Nunez was quoted in today's Post Dispatch as saying: "This is definitely the most fun I've had in my career."

 

People usually play better when they are relaxed and having fun. The Cards are a solid all-around team with a large division lead. Maybe some players initially over-perform simply because they don't feel like there is any pressure to perform to begin with. Then, after they've over-achieved for a little while, it starts to be something they expect from themselves because they KNOW they're capable of doing it.

 

I don't really think any one thing can be attributed to the success of some of the players the Cards have called up, or picked up...but there's certainly a lot of possible reasons why those players might be having success. Whether it be due to one thing in particular, or some combination of things, there's no question that something seems to be working that's beyond the realm of "luck."

 

"Luck" is nothing more than a temporary streak that defies probability. Those streaks tend to even out in the long run (through "bad luck") as probability reasserts itself. If something seems to be "lucky" across a span of years, then the chances are very good that there are outside forces at work that are positively affecting the original baseline probabilities.

[Edgeman187]

To get back on topic...another possible factor that nobody has mentioned is that it could just be psychological.

 

Nunez was quoted in today's Post Dispatch as saying: "This is definitely the most fun I've had in my career."

 

People usually play better when they are relaxed and having fun. The Cards are a solid all-around team with a large division lead. Maybe some players initially over-perform simply because they don't feel like there is any pressure to perform to begin with. Then, after they've over-achieved for a little while, it starts to be something they expect from themselves because they KNOW they're capable of doing it.

 

I don't really think any one thing can be attributed to the success of some of the players the Cards have called up, or picked up...but there's certainly a lot of possible reasons why those players might be having success. Whether it be due to one thing in particular, or some combination of things, there's no question that something seems to be working that's beyond the realm of "luck."

 

"Luck" is nothing more than a temporary streak that defies probability. Those streaks tend to even out in the long run (through "bad luck") as probability reasserts itself. If something seems to be "lucky" across a span of years, then the chances are very good that there are outside forces at work that are positively affecting the original baseline probabilities.

 

 

Not possible. The Cards are just lucky. No other explanation. :roll:

[TruffleShuffle]

Not possible. The Cards are just lucky. No other explanation. :roll:

 

And luck could have nothing to do with the fact that a guy is performing 50 OPS+ points higher than his career average. :roll:

[EastonBlues22]

Not possible. The Cards are just lucky. No other explanation. :roll:

 

And luck could have nothing to do with the fact that a guy is performing 50 OPS+ points higher than his career average. :roll:

Fine, explain how you think luck is playing a role. Are defenders tripping? Is he closing his eyes when he swings and just getting "lucky" when he hits the ball squarely?

 

I could only find statistics for his first 212 ABs for this, but his line drive percentage is 17%, which is just a shade under the MLB average of 19%. He hits slightly more ground balls than the average as well...47% to 44%. All in all, he's doing the things that an average MLB hitter should be doing.

 

His career OBP is about .07 higher than his career BA...this year his OBP is .064 above his BA, so no surprises there. Neither his IsoP nor his secA are career highs, or even all that much above his career averages. The only things that have increased significantly are his BB/SO (at .90 now, career average .55) and his BA (up .065 points). Even his BB/PA is about the same.

 

The difference between his career BA and his one extra hit every 13 ABs or so...hardly miraculous stuff. I don't have his line drive percentage from years past, but it's possible he's raised that this year (I speculate because his GB/FB ratio is the lowest he's ever had in a season with more than 100 ABs), thus leading to that one extra hit every so often. The two seasons he's had with the most games played and most ABs also happen to be the ones with his two highest seasonal batting averages. It's been shown that the more he plays, the better he does...and now he's on pace to beat his career highs in GP by 12 and his ABs by about 50 so the increased playing time could certainly be a factor in his success.

 

Line drive percentage, playing time, enjoyment of the game, hitting in front of Pujols so he's getting better pitches to hit (he's hitting .422 in the #2 slot in 64ABs...everywhere else he's batting .279). There's just too many realistic possibilities to blithely chalk it up to luck.

 

 

In fact, a lot of things are entirely within the realm of possibility...why does it have to be luck?

[treebird]

Not possible. The Cards are just lucky. No other explanation. :roll:

 

And luck could have nothing to do with the fact that a guy is performing 50 OPS+ points higher than his career average. :roll:

Fine, explain how you think luck is playing a role. Are defenders tripping? Is he closing his eyes when he swings and just getting "lucky" when he hits the ball squarely?

 

I could only find statistics for his first 212 ABs for this, but his line drive percentage is 17%, which is just a shade under the MLB average of 19%. He hits slightly more ground balls than the average as well...47% to 44%. All in all, he's doing the things that an average MLB hitter should be doing.

 

His career OBP is about .07 higher than his career BA...this year his OBP is .064 above his BA, so no surprises there. Neither his IsoP nor his secA are career highs, or even all that much above his career averages. The only things that have increased significantly are his BB/SO (at .90 now, career average .55) and his BA (up .065 points). Even his BB/PA is about the same.

 

The difference between his career BA and his one extra hit every 13 ABs or so...hardly miraculous stuff. I don't have his line drive percentage from years past, but it's possible he's raised that this year (I speculate because his GB/FB ratio is the lowest he's ever had in a season with more than 100 ABs), thus leading to that one extra hit every so often. The two seasons he's had with the most games played and most ABs also happen to be the ones with his two highest seasonal batting averages. It's been shown that the more he plays, the better he does...and now he's on pace to beat his career highs in GP by 12 and his ABs by about 50 so the increased playing time could certainly be a factor in his success.

 

Line drive percentage, playing time, enjoyment of the game, hitting in front of Pujols so he's getting better pitches to hit (he's hitting .422 in the #2 slot in 64ABs...everywhere else he's batting .279). There's just too many realistic possibilities to blithely chalk it up to luck.

 

 

In fact, a lot of things are entirely within the realm of possibility...why does it have to be luck?

 

when all of a guys numbers stay the same but his batting average fluctuates, we almost always attribute that to luck. this is a fact whether we are discussing a Cardinal or a Cub or a Devil Ray.

[EastonBlues22]

when all of a guys numbers stay the same but his batting average fluctuates, we almost always attribute that to luck. this is a fact whether we are discussing a Cardinal or a Cub or a Devil Ray.

Then luck plays a massive part in almost every players BA from year to year. Edmonds, for example, has had between .030 and .040 BA swings every year since 2002...sometimes up, sometimes down. Even Pujols, whom I think is the model of consistency, has had a .045 swing in his batting average from one year to the next.

 

Attribute that to luck if you want, but if you do, then it applies to everyone's swings and it shouldn't be tagged on just one player. Ramirez, Lee, Garciaparra, Rolen, Sanders, Patterson...tons of players have had their BAs swing significantly from year to year at least once in their career...and usually more. Was it luck when Patterson went from .253 to .298? From .298 to .266? From .266 to .233?

[treebird]

when all of a guys numbers stay the same but his batting average fluctuates, we almost always attribute that to luck. this is a fact whether we are discussing a Cardinal or a Cub or a Devil Ray.

Then luck plays a massive part in almost every players BA from year to year. Edmonds, for example, has had between .030 and .040 BA swings every year since 2002...sometimes up, sometimes down. Even Pujols, whom I think is the model of consistency, has had a .045 swing in his batting average from one year to the next.

 

Attribute that to luck if you want, but if you do, then it applies to everyone's swings and it shouldn't be tagged on just one player. Ramirez, Lee, Garciaparra, Rolen, Sanders, Patterson...tons of players have had their BAs swing significantly from year to year at least once in their career...and usually more. Was it luck when Patterson went from .253 to .298? From .298 to .266? From .266 to .233?

 

READ MY POST

 

luck plays hugely into batting average for all players. you can look at ld% and babip to see that. and i already said that it doesn't just apply to cardinals and not cubs.

[TruffleShuffle]

Not possible. The Cards are just lucky. No other explanation. :roll:

 

And luck could have nothing to do with the fact that a guy is performing 50 OPS+ points higher than his career average. :roll:

Fine, explain how you think luck is playing a role. Are defenders tripping? Is he closing his eyes when he swings and just getting "lucky" when he hits the ball squarely?

 

I could only find statistics for his first 212 ABs for this, but his line drive percentage is 17%, which is just a shade under the MLB average of 19%. He hits slightly more ground balls than the average as well...47% to 44%. All in all, he's doing the things that an average MLB hitter should be doing.

 

His career OBP is about .07 higher than his career BA...this year his OBP is .064 above his BA, so no surprises there. Neither his IsoP nor his secA are career highs, or even all that much above his career averages. The only things that have increased significantly are his BB/SO (at .90 now, career average .55) and his BA (up .065 points). Even his BB/PA is about the same.

 

The difference between his career BA and his one extra hit every 13 ABs or so...hardly miraculous stuff. I don't have his line drive percentage from years past, but it's possible he's raised that this year (I speculate because his GB/FB ratio is the lowest he's ever had in a season with more than 100 ABs), thus leading to that one extra hit every so often. The two seasons he's had with the most games played and most ABs also happen to be the ones with his two highest seasonal batting averages. It's been shown that the more he plays, the better he does...and now he's on pace to beat his career highs in GP by 12 and his ABs by about 50 so the increased playing time could certainly be a factor in his success.

 

Line drive percentage, playing time, enjoyment of the game, hitting in front of Pujols so he's getting better pitches to hit (he's hitting .422 in the #2 slot in 64ABs...everywhere else he's batting .279). There's just too many realistic possibilities to blithely chalk it up to luck.

 

 

In fact, a lot of things are entirely within the realm of possibility...why does it have to be luck?

 

And you're missing the entire point of my argument. I don't care if he's getting lucky this year or not. His career numbers are:

 

.238/.306/.316/.622

 

His career highs in those categories are:

 

.262/.326/.357/.667

 

His numbers this year are:

 

.313/.376/.418/.794

 

 

So, he's hitting for higher average and therefore getting on base a lot more than usual; he's hitting for more power, and his OPS is over 150 points over his career average. Whether it's luck or not doesn't concern me... my point is that his performance this year was absolutely unforeseeable given his horrendous offense performance over his entire major league career. Whatever the reasons for his good play this year, the Cardinals were very fortunate to sign a bad player and have him perform above-average.

[wolf stansson]

Who even cares? Some guys are overachieving, some guys are underachieving. It will more than likely even out. Arguing about how a guy should or shouldn't be performing isn't going to make him perform any better or worse. It won't validate or invalidate their performances. Baseball is unpredictable at times.

[TruffleShuffle]

Who even cares? Some guys are overachieving, some guys are underachieving. It will more than likely even out.

 

You're not really looking at it analytically. The Cardinals over the past two years have, in the overwhelming majority, overachieved rather than underachieved. I've already listed all the stats to show that. Maybe it will even out at some point, but it didn't last year and it hasn't this year either. I'm not saying that to claim that guys will play differently... all I'm doing is pointing out that it's happening.

[indifferent]

Who even cares? Some guys are overachieving, some guys are underachieving. It will more than likely even out.

 

You're not really looking at it analytically. The Cardinals over the past two years have, in the overwhelming majority, overachieved rather than underachieved. I've already listed all the stats to show that. Maybe it will even out at some point, but it didn't last year and it hasn't this year either. I'm not saying that to claim that guys will play differently... all I'm doing is pointing out that it's happening.

 

Wolf's point is some are overachieving, some our underachieving, and some on right on par (Eckstein, Grudz). Underachievers include Edmonds, Rolen, and Walker.

[TruffleShuffle]

Who even cares? Some guys are overachieving, some guys are underachieving. It will more than likely even out.

 

You're not really looking at it analytically. The Cardinals over the past two years have, in the overwhelming majority, overachieved rather than underachieved. I've already listed all the stats to show that. Maybe it will even out at some point, but it didn't last year and it hasn't this year either. I'm not saying that to claim that guys will play differently... all I'm doing is pointing out that it's happening.

 

Wolf's point is some are overachieving, some our underachieving, and some on right on par (Eckstein, Grudz). Underachievers include Edmonds, Rolen, and Walker.

 

To repeat myself for the 100th time, far more guys are outperforming their projected numbers than underperforming, and this was the case last year as well. You throw out the three guys who could be considered underachieving - although Walker is basically the same case as Maddux, where it's more a case of hitting the expected slide due to old age than it is "underachieving". And while Edmonds' numbers are poor in the context of his Cardinal career, it could be noted that this would have been a career year for him in Anaheim. Considering his age and injury-riddled history, his days of 1.000 OPS might well be over.

 

Overachievers: Taguchi, "J-Rod", Nunez, Sanders, Carpenter, Reyes, Tavarez, Flores... like I said, one list is a lot longer than the other. I'm not saying it as a rip on the Cardinals. I said before the season that they are the better team, and that's really obvious now. Be happy that your team has a lot of talent as well as some good fortune shining upon it. I wish that the Cubs had as many guys playing better than expected as the Cards do, because the Cubs would be in the playoff race rather than in the race to get a top 10 draft pick.

[EastonBlues22]

when all of a guys numbers stay the same but his batting average fluctuates, we almost always attribute that to luck. this is a fact whether we are discussing a Cardinal or a Cub or a Devil Ray.

Then luck plays a massive part in almost every players BA from year to year. Edmonds, for example, has had between .030 and .040 BA swings every year since 2002...sometimes up, sometimes down. Even Pujols, whom I think is the model of consistency, has had a .045 swing in his batting average from one year to the next.

 

Attribute that to luck if you want, but if you do, then it applies to everyone's swings and it shouldn't be tagged on just one player. Ramirez, Lee, Garciaparra, Rolen, Sanders, Patterson...tons of players have had their BAs swing significantly from year to year at least once in their career...and usually more. Was it luck when Patterson went from .253 to .298? From .298 to .266? From .266 to .233?

 

READ MY POST

 

luck plays hugely into batting average for all players. you can look at ld% and babip to see that. and i already said that it doesn't just apply to cardinals and not cubs.

The only reason I said that was because I have never heard of the batting average trends of Lee, ARAM, or Patterson referred to in "lucky" terms on this board. Or the batting averages of Cardinals on a Cards board, for that matter. It's always "plate discipline" or "changes in approach" or something else. So, when did it become such a commonplace occurance to chalk BA swings up to luck? You state it like it's been an accepted given for years and that there's really not much difference between a .275 average and a .300 average in terms of hitting quality... If you can really chalk 40 point batting average swings between samples that are a year in length to merely "luck," then I must simply disagree with you.

[treebird]

The only reason I said that was because I have never heard of the batting average trends of Lee, ARAM, or Patterson referred to in "lucky" terms on this board. Or the batting averages of Cardinals on a Cards board, for that matter. It's always "plate discipline" or "changes in approach" or something else. So, when did it become such a commonplace occurance to chalk BA swings up to luck? You state it like it's been an accepted given for years and that there's really not much difference between a .275 average and a .300 average in terms of hitting quality... If you can really chalk 40 point batting average swings between samples that are a year in length to merely "luck," then I must simply disagree with you.

 

over 600 at bats, the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is 15 hits.

 

a guy who hits .300 over his career is a better hitter for average than a guy hits .275 over his career. within a season, i wouldnt be willing to say that.

 

you seem pretty smart. you should read this book.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The only reason I said that was because I have never heard of the batting average trends of Lee, ARAM, or Patterson referred to in "lucky" terms on this board. Or the batting averages of Cardinals on a Cards board, for that matter. It's always "plate discipline" or "changes in approach" or something else. So, when did it become such a commonplace occurance to chalk BA swings up to luck? You state it like it's been an accepted given for years and that there's really not much difference between a .275 average and a .300 average in terms of hitting quality... If you can really chalk 40 point batting average swings between samples that are a year in length to merely "luck," then I must simply disagree with you.

 

over 600 at bats, the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is 15 hits.

 

a guy who hits .300 over his career is a better hitter for average than a guy hits .275 over his career. within a season, i wouldnt be willing to say that.

 

you seem pretty smart. you should read this book.

 

I think I have ADD. I bought Curve Ball 4 months ago, and tried to start it, but couldn't make it to page 20. Maybe once I've been in school a bit and my mind is working again I can try it again on a break.

[treebird]

The only reason I said that was because I have never heard of the batting average trends of Lee, ARAM, or Patterson referred to in "lucky" terms on this board. Or the batting averages of Cardinals on a Cards board, for that matter. It's always "plate discipline" or "changes in approach" or something else. So, when did it become such a commonplace occurance to chalk BA swings up to luck? You state it like it's been an accepted given for years and that there's really not much difference between a .275 average and a .300 average in terms of hitting quality... If you can really chalk 40 point batting average swings between samples that are a year in length to merely "luck," then I must simply disagree with you.

 

over 600 at bats, the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is 15 hits.

 

a guy who hits .300 over his career is a better hitter for average than a guy hits .275 over his career. within a season, i wouldnt be willing to say that.

 

you seem pretty smart. you should read this book.

 

I think I have ADD. I bought Curve Ball 4 months ago, and tried to start it, but couldn't make it to page 20. Maybe once I've been in school a bit and my mind is working again I can try it again on a break.

 

It gets kind of repetitive towards the end, but I really liked it. It kind of makes you wonder about baseball when you realize how possible it is to do everything right and lose anyway, and vice versa.

[EastonBlues22]

And you're missing the entire point of my argument. I don't care if he's getting lucky this year or not. His career numbers are:

 

.238/.306/.316/.622

 

His career highs in those categories are:

 

.262/.326/.357/.667

 

His numbers this year are:

 

.313/.376/.418/.794

 

So, he's hitting for higher average and therefore getting on base a lot more than usual; he's hitting for more power, and his OPS is over 150 points over his career average. Whether it's luck or not doesn't concern me... my point is that his performance this year was absolutely unforeseeable given his horrendous offense performance over his entire major league career. Whatever the reasons for his good play this year, the Cardinals were very fortunate to sign a bad player and have him perform above-average.

He isn't hitting for much more power, really. Comparing his IsoP to his career average, there's a difference of .024. The difference in his slugging percentage from his career average is .090. Most of the difference is due to his higher batting average, not his hitting for more power.

 

He's not really walking more (.093 BB/PA vs .087 BB/PA career), so the only boost to his OBP is his batting average.

 

The only thing he's really doing differently is hitting more singles when before he used to make outs. But, because every single he hits is counted twice in the compilation of OPS (once for OBP, and once for SLG), it's looking like he's lighting it up. I'm telling you, the vast majority of that 150+ rise in OPS is directly caused by 16 extra hits over a span of 254 ABs. That's one extra hit every 16 ABs. Take away those 16 singles (I'll even give you that they're all singles, juicing his slg a little bit), and his recalculated OPS would be .674 (.316 OBP + .358 SLG). That's a drop of 126 OPS points right there.

 

I agree that something like this would never have been predicted based upon his past performance, but I really don't think it's some mind-boggling transformation that some people (not necessarily you) seem to think it is.

 

Not to mention, there's still plenty of time for his stats to sink back into the realm of "normal" for him as well...one bad three week stretch and those numbers would be obliterated. We've seen that with a few players this year already...trending up AND trending down. If his performance is truly a stretch of positive variance, there's plenty of time left for that to even itself out.

[EastonBlues22]

The only reason I said that was because I have never heard of the batting average trends of Lee, ARAM, or Patterson referred to in "lucky" terms on this board. Or the batting averages of Cardinals on a Cards board, for that matter. It's always "plate discipline" or "changes in approach" or something else. So, when did it become such a commonplace occurance to chalk BA swings up to luck? You state it like it's been an accepted given for years and that there's really not much difference between a .275 average and a .300 average in terms of hitting quality... If you can really chalk 40 point batting average swings between samples that are a year in length to merely "luck," then I must simply disagree with you.

 

over 600 at bats, the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is 15 hits.

 

a guy who hits .300 over his career is a better hitter for average than a guy hits .275 over his career. within a season, i wouldnt be willing to say that.

 

you seem pretty smart. you should read this book.

Ok, thanks for the tip. Never heard of that one but I'll check it out once I can scrape together the dough.

[UK1679666180]

It's not a bad book, I wouldn't rec. buying it, probably look at the local library or bookstore to get the general idea of it.

 

Most of it contains stats and the relations and the calculations of the stats.

 

Just remember one of the linear weights (RC is the easiest to find), EqA, and ((1.6*OBP+SLG)/.36) and you'll be fine.

 

As far as pitching...

 

((13*HR)+(3*BB)-(2*K)/IP) +3.2) works for me...