When are we going to stop talking about luck re: the Cards?

[genghiskhan]

Our GM is better than the Cubs GM--look at all the trades Jocketty has made, then look at the deals Chicago has made, and tell me who is better.

 

if you're basing how good a GM is only on trades, your boy doesn't exactly have an advantage.

 

::shrugs:: Matter of opinion. Jocketty has made some excellent trades, I think.

[ltb]

Our GM is better than the Cubs GM--look at all the trades Jocketty has made, then look at the deals Chicago has made, and tell me who is better.

 

if you're basing how good a GM is only on trades, your boy doesn't exactly have an advantage.

 

::shrugs:: Matter of opinion. Jocketty has made some excellent trades, I think.

 

If it's a matter of opinion, why did you state it as fact?

[Bull]

TLR inspires clutchiness.

[PujolsPower]

Our GM is better than the Cubs GM--look at all the trades Jocketty has made, then look at the deals Chicago has made, and tell me who is better.

 

if you're basing how good a GM is only on trades, your boy doesn't exactly have an advantage.

 

Jocketty has acquired the following players via trade:

 

McGwire

Rolen

Edmonds

Walker

Woody Williams

Vina

Kile

Will Clark

Chuck Finley

Kline

Hermanson

King

Marquis

 

Notable players given up:

 

Drew

Polanco

Timlin

Jack Wilson

Coco Crisp

Adam Kennedy

 

 

Are you saying that Hendry's trade record is better?

[treebird]

Our GM is better than the Cubs GM--look at all the trades Jocketty has made, then look at the deals Chicago has made, and tell me who is better.

 

if you're basing how good a GM is only on trades, your boy doesn't exactly have an advantage.

 

Jocketty has acquired the following players via trade:

 

McGwire

Rolen

Edmonds

Walker

Woody Williams

Vina

Kile

Will Clark

Chuck Finley

Kline

Hermanson

King

Marquis

 

Notable players given up:

 

Drew

Polanco

Timlin

Jack Wilson

Coco Crisp

Adam Kennedy

 

 

Are you saying that Hendry's trade record is better?

 

im not particularly impressed by either hendry or jocketty's trade record. most all of each gm's big deals were merely a matter of having the ability to take on payroll. the angels knew they weren't getting full value or close to it when they traded edmonds, just as the pirates knew they weren't getting full value when they traded lofton and ramirez. it's not like jim and walt are out there brainwashing people.

[genghiskhan]

If it's a matter of opinion, why did you state it as fact?

 

Because I believe it to be fact. Because I believe Jocketty's record in trading over his tenure speaks for itself. But it's not a "fact" that can be proven as incontrovertibly as "hydrogen has one proton", so you are free to feel different.

[SirPlopigus]

I think it all starts with the managers. TLR expects his team to win no matter who is playing or who is injured. TLR doesn't make excuses when they lose. I'm not so sure the same can be said Dusty.

[snoodmonger]

If it's a matter of opinion, why did you state it as fact?

 

Because I believe it to be fact. Because I believe Jocketty's record in trading over his tenure speaks for itself. But it's not a "fact" that can be proven as incontrovertibly as "hydrogen has one proton", so you are free to feel different.

 

I'm not sure you can even compare until we know more about Hendry. He's on;y had three seasons under his belt, so obviously he hasn't made the same volume of good trades as Jocketty. But he has made pretty impressive deals. (Lofton/ARAM, Nomar).

[reggiemiller rules]

I know that I am gonna get attacked for this, but how was the Nomar trade any good except for the fact that you guys got Murton. I know Nomar has been hurt, but you have to take that into consideration when you look back at the trade. IT seemed like a great trade at the time and it appears they didnt give up that much, but they have paid Nomar an awful lot of money for what 6 home runs and 26 rbis. I think it could have been a steal but has turned out to be a bust so far. If they resign him and he does well next year it could still turn out ok. But so far it has done very little to help the Cubs.

[genghiskhan]

But he has made pretty impressive deals.

 

Hendry deserves credit for fleecing the Pirates in 2003. Or maybe the Pirates are just morons. But that was some good dealing, definitely. Overall, though, I think Jocketty wins.

[gus_dog]

I know that I am gonna get attacked for this, but how was the Nomar trade any good except for the fact that you guys got Murton. I know Nomar has been hurt, but you have to take that into consideration when you look back at the trade. IT seemed like a great trade at the time and it appears they didnt give up that much, but they have paid Nomar an awful lot of money for what 6 home runs and 26 rbis. I think it could have been a steal but has turned out to be a bust so far. If they resign him and he does well next year it could still turn out ok. But so far it has done very little to help the Cubs.

 

Well, then you don't know jack. I agree with you. Nomar hasn't really done squat for the Cubs. Injured, or not, he has really been pretty much a non-factor.

[reggiemiller rules]

I know that I am gonna get attacked for this, but how was the Nomar trade any good except for the fact that you guys got Murton. I know Nomar has been hurt, but you have to take that into consideration when you look back at the trade. IT seemed like a great trade at the time and it appears they didnt give up that much, but they have paid Nomar an awful lot of money for what 6 home runs and 26 rbis. I think it could have been a steal but has turned out to be a bust so far. If they resign him and he does well next year it could still turn out ok. But so far it has done very little to help the Cubs.

 

Well, then you don't know jack. I agree with you. Nomar hasn't really done squat for the Cubs. Injured, or not, he has really been pretty much a

non-factor.

 

Well I figured I would get attacked because Nomar seems to be a very popular player and well liked by the cubs fans.

[PieOnMyHands]

Womack (last year)

No different than what Glendon Rusch did.

 

Edmonds (since he signed with the Cards)

Always was a premier talent...the change of scenery did him good.

 

Tavarez (both years)

Place an extreme groundball pitcher into a very good defensive system, and you'll have a successful player. (Note his ridiculous 3.33 ground ball/fly out ratio in 2003!)

 

Nunez

If I remember correctly, a former member of the Pirates organization who now works in our minor league system (either a manager or a GM, I can't remember right now) recommended Nunez to us. How can you say that being traded to a contending team after spending years with a toiling franchise can't work wonders?

 

Carpenter

A first overall draft pick who's always had the stuff to be great. Overcame injuries, and once he reached his late 20s (IE: his prime), he learned how to pitch.

 

Al Reyes

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3169

 

He really put up good numbers for the last three teams he was with, even if it was in limited duty.

 

Flores

Righties are hitting .323 off of him. He's like that LOOGY you were talking about with Ray King. (Lefties hit .152, by the way.)

 

This John Rodriguez clown

He had what...one hot week? Maybe two? He's going back down to Earth. Rodriguez has always been able to hit...it's just he's a really poor player in every other aspect of the game. He can't run the bases, he's a liability defensively, and he routinely shows mental lapses out there.

 

 

Instead of bringing in someone who can blow a 98 MPH fastball by someone, they take someone who can induce groundouts for a fraction of the cost. Instead of bringing in a player who smashes 35 HRs a year (but with only a .330 OBP), they bring in a utility infielder who can do they same, while playing great defense.

 

It's not really a matter of luck...it's saving the big bucks for superstars, and then using a cheap-but-effective Moneyball-esque style for the rest of 'em.

[Cubfanintheknow]

If it's a matter of opinion, why did you state it as fact?

 

Because I believe it to be fact. Because I believe Jocketty's record in trading over his tenure speaks for itself. But it's not a "fact" that can be proven as incontrovertibly as "hydrogen has one proton", so you are free to feel different.

 

At one time, lots of people believed the Earth to be flat. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so.

[TruffleShuffle]

Womack (last year)

No different than what Glendon Rusch did.

 

One teeny tiny difference - Womack was 34, Rusch was 29... i.e., "his prime", as you call it later in the thread.

 

 

Edmonds (since he signed with the Cards)

Always was a premier talent...the change of scenery did him good.

 

And how do you know that a guy is going to get better by a change of scenery? Why not get worse by a change of scenery, or stay the same?

 

Tavarez (both years)

Place an extreme groundball pitcher into a very good defensive system' date=' and you'll have a successful player. (Note his ridiculous [b']3.33[/b] ground ball/fly out ratio in 2003!)

 

It doesn't make that big of a difference... Renteria was good but not great defensively, Rolen was great, Womack was about average and so was Pujols. He played in Pittsburgh the year before with a better defensive middle infield and didn't put up numbers that good.

 

If I remember correctly, a former member of the Pirates organization who now works in our minor league system (either a manager or a GM, I can't remember right now) recommended Nunez to us. How can you say that being traded to a contending team after spending years with a toiling franchise can't work wonders?

 

He was a pretty poor hitter in the minor leagues as well. In fact, he hasn't put up numbers this good since he played in the Dominican Summer League at age 19. I guess that must have been a winning team.

 

(Carpenter)A first overall draft pick who's always had the stuff to be great. Overcame injuries, and once he reached his late 20s (IE: his prime), he learned how to pitch.

 

And so what about guys like Tony Womack, Al Reyes, Julian Tavarez and Jim Edmonds getting better when they're past their prime. Carpenter wasn't a first overall draft pick, but he was a first round pick. You still can't say that most guys make the jump from "average" and "injury-riddled" to "Cy Young contender" and "almost completely healthy".

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3169

 

Al Reyes really put up good numbers for the last three teams he was with, even if it was in limited duty.

 

3.32 ERA and 1.32 WHIP are pretty good but nothing spectacular, and it's certainly not as good as what he's done

 

 

 

 

I guess the point is that you can look for a reason that anyone gets better and make it sound good. Derrek Lee feels more comfortable in his second year in a Cubs uniform. Neifi Perez needed a change of scenery last year and when he got it, he started hitting. Todd Hollandsworth was a former rookie of the year who thrived under Dusty Baker last season. They all sound good, don't they?

[PieOnMyHands]

Womack

One teeny tiny difference - Womack was 34, Rusch was 29... i.e., "his prime", as you call it later in the thread.

Here's the problem with trying to use this: Womack didn't have a Bonds-esque season, as you make it sound like. His OPS on the season was 30 points higher that Eckstien's career average.

 

 

Edmonds

And how do you know that a guy is going to get better by a change of scenery? Why not get worse by a change of scenery, or stay the same?

 

The fans of St. Louis are probably the most forgiving and overly-grateful fans in sports. They give curtain calls like Jenna Jameson gives...

 

Here's an interview from Edmonds a few years ago:

" It doesn't take a genius to come in here and learn what it's all about and learn how to play the game, and the fans accept you. That's what makes it all worth while. You go out here and you play hard, and these people stand up and cheer for you, and that's what makes it so much fun."

 

He also mentions this, about his troubles in Anaheim:

"I haven't put a finger on it yet. I think I had some run-ins with the media in Anaheim. And I just didn't appreciate the way that they put the team down. And I was kind of vocal towards it, and when anything was wrong, it was my fault. So I took that responsibility. That was fine, and actually took a lot of heat off the players in Anaheim. I think right now, what you see is what you get. And I'm trying to prove everything wrong. And it's obvious that I'm not the kind of person I was made out to be in Anaheim."

 

 

Tavarez

It doesn't make that big of a difference... Renteria was good but not great defensively, Rolen was great, Womack was about average and so was Pujols. He played in Pittsburgh the year before with a better defensive middle infield and didn't put up numbers that good.

 

2003 (with the Pirates): 1.22 WHIP, .244 BAA, 3.66 ERA

2004: 1.18 WHIP, .238 BAA, 2.38 ERA

2005: 1.16 WHIP, .258 BAA, 2.61 ERA

 

I really don't see a difference in his stats, aside from ERA. You also have to factor in how Tavarez was used in different roles in Pittsburgh. (He was in a closer's role long enough to record 11 saves...) You can't argue that pitching as a set-up man isn't easier than being a closer, based on the pressure alone.. Just as soon as you call 2004 and 2005 "lucky," I'll counter it and say that 2003 was just the opposite -- unfortunate.

 

 

Nunez

He was a pretty poor hitter in the minor leagues as well. In fact, he hasn't put up numbers this good since he played in the Dominican Summer League at age 19. I guess that must have been a winning team.

 

Batting average by month:

April: .273

May: .268

June: .375

July: .354

August: .233

 

He had a two-month stretch of playing as a spot starter when he was on fire. Neifi Perez, from when you acquired him last season through April of this year year, hit .369. How do you explain that?

 

 

Carpenter

And so what about guys like Tony Womack, Al Reyes, Julian Tavarez and Jim Edmonds getting better when they're past their prime. Carpenter wasn't a first overall draft pick, but he was a first round pick. You still can't say that most guys make the jump from "average" and "injury-riddled" to "Cy Young contender" and "almost completely healthy".

 

For starters, I know that Carpenter was not first overall in the league, I meant first overall in the Blue Jay's draft that year.

 

Walt Jocketty took a risk. He knew Chris Carpenter had the potential to be a very good pitcher. In all fairness, so do a lot of other guys. We paid Carpenter to rehab with us for a year and a half, though. It's not like we signed him and he instantaneously turned to gold. We put ourselves into a low-risk, high-reward situation, and it turned out to be successful. Did Jocketty expect Chris Carpenter to turn into one of the NL's premier pitchers? Only in his dreams. Then again, did Jim Hendry expect Derrek Lee to go on to have an offensive season comparable to Albert Pujols? Yes, Lee was successful...and yes, Lee was a very solid offensive player, but the Cubs did not trade for the juggernaut he's turned into.

 

 

Al Reyes

3.32 ERA and 1.32 WHIP are pretty good but nothing spectacular, and it's certainly not as good as what he's done.

 

2002 (with Pittsburgh): .94 WHIP, .161 BAA, 2.65 ERA

2003 (with Yankees): 1.29 WHIP, .201 BAA, 3.18 ERA

2005 (with Cardinals): .91 WHIP, .175 BAA, 2.54 ERA

 

Why can't you say that 2003 was a fluke from his recent history?

 

 

I guess the point is that you can look for a reason that anyone gets better and make it sound good. Derrek Lee feels more comfortable in his second year in a Cubs uniform. Neifi Perez needed a change of scenery last year and when he got it, he started hitting. Todd Hollandsworth was a former rookie of the year who thrived under Dusty Baker last season. They all sound good, don't they?

 

I think the point is that people in this topic are looking for ways to take away from the Cardinal's success. I'm just suggesting that it is absolutely asinine to suggest that "luck" plays anything more than a minimal role in the Cardinal's success. It's been acheived through intelligent management and the relentless, fundamentally-sound philosiphy of the coaching staff.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Womack

One teeny tiny difference - Womack was 34, Rusch was 29... i.e., "his prime", as you call it later in the thread.

Here's the problem with trying to use this: Womack didn't have a Bonds-esque season, as you make it sound like. His OPS on the season was 30 points higher that Eckstien's career average.

 

Yet it was still easily the best season of Womack's career, at age 34.

 

Al Reyes

3.32 ERA and 1.32 WHIP are pretty good but nothing spectacular, and it's certainly not as good as what he's done.

 

2002 (with Pittsburgh): .94 WHIP, .161 BAA, 2.65 ERA

2003 (with Yankees): 1.29 WHIP, .201 BAA, 3.18 ERA

2005 (with Cardinals): .91 WHIP, .175 BAA, 2.54 ERA

 

Why can't you say that 2003 was a fluke from his recent history?

 

2002: 17 IP

2003: 17 IP

2004: 12 IP

2005: 46 IP

 

Reyes has pitched as many innings this year as the last 3 years combined. He hasn't been within 20 innings of this year's total since 1999.

 

 

The point remains is that the Cardinals have consistently gotten players to overachieve. Some of that can be attributed to coaching, some to luck. How much of each we'll never know. However, you can't deny the good fortunes of the Cards the last few years as they have had significantly better W-L records than their performance should have dictated.

[Strife]

Geez, I wish we could trade in some of that 'luck' for a couple games of luck in last year's Series.

 

For an intelligent person to say that luck is a primary factor in the Cardinals' success is just ludicrous.

[TruffleShuffle]

For an intelligent person to say that luck is a primary factor in the Cardinals' success is just ludicrous.

 

Yet here some of us are, actually providing statistical evidence that the last two years, a large number of Cardinals have performed above where they'd be expected to perform based on career norms. I think it's ludicrous for an intelligent person to ignore stats that suggest that the Cards' success the last 2 years does have something to do with luck.

[PieOnMyHands]

The point remains is that the Cardinals have consistently gotten players to overachieve. Some of that can be attributed to coaching, some to luck. How much of each we'll never know. However, you can't deny the good fortunes of the Cards the last few years as they have had significantly better W-L records than their performance should have dictated.

 

But the fact of the matter is, every team has players that overacheive, and those that don't live up to their billing. This isn't a unqiue situation the Cardinals are in.

 

I'll say it again: if you think that the reason the Cardinals have been so successful their last 300 games is because of luck, then I believe you are sorely mistaken.

 

There is more to the game to statistics. I'm as big a fan as sabermetrics as the next guy, but there are unmeasurable intangibles that, when combined with those stats, ultimately determine the outcome of games.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The point remains is that the Cardinals have consistently gotten players to overachieve. Some of that can be attributed to coaching, some to luck. How much of each we'll never know. However, you can't deny the good fortunes of the Cards the last few years as they have had significantly better W-L records than their performance should have dictated.

 

But the fact of the matter is, every team has players that overacheive, and those that don't live up to their billing. This isn't a unqiue situation the Cardinals are in.

 

Really? I doubt there are many if any teams that have had such turnarounds with as many players as the Cards have had.

[1908]

I'm as big a fan as sabermetrics as the next guy, but there are unmeasurable intangibles that, when combined with those stats, ultimately determine the outcome of games.

If these intangibles can't be measured, how do you know they affect the game?

[EastonBlues22]

The point remains is that the Cardinals have consistently gotten players to overachieve. Some of that can be attributed to coaching, some to luck. How much of each we'll never know. However, you can't deny the good fortunes of the Cards the last few years as they have had significantly better W-L records than their performance should have dictated.

 

But the fact of the matter is, every team has players that overacheive, and those that don't live up to their billing. This isn't a unqiue situation the Cardinals are in.

 

I'll say it again: if you think that the reason the Cardinals have been so successful their last 300 games is because of luck, then I believe you are sorely mistaken.

 

There is more to the game to statistics. I'm as big a fan as sabermetrics as the next guy, but there are unmeasurable intangibles that, when combined with those stats, ultimately determine the outcome of games.

You might as well just let it drop. They aren't going to change their minds. Nor are they going to look into the aquisitions or callups of all the other teams over the last few years to see how many of those have "over achieved." Or how likely a newly aquired/called up player is to overachieve based upon his salary level and age. Are cheaper players more likely to overachieve? Are younger players? What about players that go from a losing team to a winning one? The truth of this conversation is that there is no larger context to place their observations in...nor is there likely to ever be one...so no one really has any idea if the Cards are "luckier" than any other team out there.

 

And even if it was shown that they did have a larger percentage of overachievers than what could be expected (based upon trends that came from answers to questions like those that I posed above)...that still doesn't prove that it was due to luck. It would just show that the Cards do have a trend of overachievement that is beyond what the average team enjoys. That could be due to luck, or successful coaching, or skillfull front office work, or a winning environment, or being surrounded by a more talented cast of players, or who knows what.

 

The whole conversation is pointless.

[1908]

You might as well just let it drop. They aren't going to change their minds. Nor are they going to look into the aquisitions or callups of all the other teams over the last few years to see how many of those have "over achieved." Or how likely a newly aquired/called up player is to overachieve based upon his salary level and age. Are cheaper players more likely to overachieve? Are younger players? What about players that go from a losing team to a winning one? The truth of this conversation is that there is no larger context to place their observations in...nor is there likely to ever be one...so no one really has any idea if the Cards are "luckier" than any other team out there.

 

And even if it was shown that they did have a larger percentage of overachievers than what could be expected (based upon trends that came from answers to questions like those that I posed above)...that still doesn't prove that it was due to luck. It would just show that the Cards do have a trend of overachievement that is beyond what the average team enjoys. That could be due to luck, or successful coaching, or skillful front office work, or a winning environment, or being surrounded by a more talented cast of players, or who knows what.

 

The whole conversation is pointless.

I understand your point and agree that this conversation should've stopped a few pages ago. I would like to point out that you're as likely to change your mind, that you're not going to look into the questions you mentioned above either, and that there's at least as much evidence for the luck theory as there is for "successful coaching, or skillful front office work, or a winning environment, or being surrounded by a more talented cast of players."

[EastonBlues22]

You might as well just let it drop. They aren't going to change their minds. Nor are they going to look into the aquisitions or callups of all the other teams over the last few years to see how many of those have "over achieved." Or how likely a newly aquired/called up player is to overachieve based upon his salary level and age. Are cheaper players more likely to overachieve? Are younger players? What about players that go from a losing team to a winning one? The truth of this conversation is that there is no larger context to place their observations in...nor is there likely to ever be one...so no one really has any idea if the Cards are "luckier" than any other team out there.

 

And even if it was shown that they did have a larger percentage of overachievers than what could be expected (based upon trends that came from answers to questions like those that I posed above)...that still doesn't prove that it was due to luck. It would just show that the Cards do have a trend of overachievement that is beyond what the average team enjoys. That could be due to luck, or successful coaching, or skillful front office work, or a winning environment, or being surrounded by a more talented cast of players, or who knows what.

 

The whole conversation is pointless.

I understand your point and agree that this conversation should've stopped a few pages ago. I would like to point out that you're as likely to change your mind, that you're not going to look into the questions you mentioned above either, and that there's at least as much evidence for the luck theory as there is for "successful coaching, or skillful front office work, or a winning environment, or being surrounded by a more talented cast of players."

Agreed...I'm not going to change my mind either. I've been shown nothing that's compelling evidence for me to do so (I'm sure that the other side of this argument feels exactly the same way, and I don't blame them).

 

Agreed...I'm not going to look up the information that's needed to make this conversation a meaningful one. It was someone else who felt strongly enough about the matter to start a discussion on it, and other people who've felt strongly enough about it to continue it even after it was obvious there would be no quick collusion of viewpoints...if any of them are still so impassioned, let them do the heavy lifting to give this whole mess some meaning.

 

And finally...agreed. There's just as much hard "evidence" for the luck side of things as there is for the other. Which is to say, absolutely none. I'm pretty sure I've stated no absolutes in this thread...only possible theories. And luck does remain one of those...which is why I included it in my list.