EastonBlues22

Pujols has had a total of 376 runners on base in his PA's - 14th best in MLB - and plated 65 (.1729 RBI/runner). Lee has had a total of 310 runners on base in his PA's and plated 55 (.1774 RBI/runner). Neither rate of plating runners is running away with the league. Aramis Ramirez has been more efficient than either, as has So Taguchi. Eckstein's rate (264 runners leading to 46 RBI) bests Pujols. Where the runner is counts a lot more than just if he is on base, as I noted earlier, for a lot of reasons. What are the rates/numbers for RISP?

Pujols has had 118 ABs (58 RBI) with RISP, Lee has had 111 (60 RBI)...that's not a very significant difference (~6%) even without the total number of ABs are factored in. If you compare the rates of ABs with RISP to total ABs, then the rates are even closer...Pujols sees a RISP with 23.7% in his 497 total ABs, Lee at 22.6% in his 491 total ABs. That's a difference of 1.1% Pujols has had significantly more ABs (~14%) with runners aboard...227 (82 RBI) to Lee's 195 (70 RBI). If Lee was projected with that production to 227 ABs...he would have 81.49 RBIs. Again, if the actual rates are compared instead of just the raw numbers, you have Pujols batting with a runner aboard in 45.7% of his 497 total ABs and Lee having a runner aboard in 39.7% or his 491 total ABs. That's a difference of 6%. So, it appears to me anyway, that it's not the rates that runners are getting into scoring position ahead of Lee that's been his biggest problem...those are actually very comparable to Pujols'. It seems, looking at those percentages, that the overall team OBP is more influential to Lee's stats than the ability of runners to get into RISP ahead of him. The Cards have a .341 OBP, the Cubs a .328 OBP...that's a 4% difference that factors directly into the raw number of ABs, and thus RBI chances, that Lee will have this year. Lee currently has a 6% deficit in the RBI department, but enjoys a 10% advantage in HRs and a 9% advantage in overall slugging over Pujols. You would think that would add up to more RBIs for Lee, but it hasn't since they are slugging almost identicall with runners aboard (.615 for Lee and .617 for Pujols). Anyway, it's interesting stuff...and enough to make your head spin if you're looking for definitive absolutes. On a different note, something that nobody seems to be mentioning is the protection that Lee has enjoyed from his #4 hitter this year. Compare Lee's protection with Pujols': CHI #4 batters: 31 HR, 276 total bases, 89 RBI, .287 BA, .538 SLG STL #4 batters: 23 HR, 242 total bases, 83 RBI, .278 BA, .494 SLG For perspective, those are about 26%, 12%, 7%, 3%, and 8% advantages, respectively. How much would Pujols have benefitted from the protection that Lee has gotten in the lineup? Can anyone project how much that would add to Pujols' stats? Sure it's nice having people on base (notice I said on base, which implies that the runner is on first, as we've already established that the amount of opportunities with RISP has been very similar), but if nobody will throw you a decent pitch because the guy hitting behind you is much less of a threat, how much of an advantage do really have...if any...at driving in that extra runner on first (the one that can only be driven in with an extra base hit)? Since you're more likely to get extra base hits when the pitcher can't nibble at the strike zone while pitching around you (Pujols has more IBBs, and BBs, than Lee with RISP), it would seem that the extra protection that Lee enjoys tends to naturally offset the advantage in people on first that Pujols gets. Simply restated, Pujols is more likely to see a man on first when he hits, be he's less likely to get a pitch good enough to hit for an extra base hit to knock that runner in. Lee will see less runners on first when he hits, but he's more likely to see a pitch good enough to get that man home with the protection he enjoys behind him. It's obvious that both extra runners on and better protection are advantages that can help a hitter's stats...so both Pujols and Lee enjoy advantages that the other one doesn't. I'm not trying to argue a case either for Pujols or for Lee... I just wanted to add my two cents to the argument that "Lee has significantly less RBI opportunities than Pujols" and bring up another point that I would like to see discussed if anyone feels they can add to it. *EDIT: edited the second time to say that my first edit was used to add rate information to the original raw number information; edited a third time to correct wording for clarity; edited a fourth for no particular reason whatsoever

The only reason it happened was because he was pitching against the worst offense in the majors. The only way that Marquis is overachieving this year is with his bat.

That was allowed to happen because the scheduled off days permitted it. I'm almost 100% positive that there wasn't a single start by any starter on short rest in that span.

at .255/.292/.365, it's kind of hard not to. But you'd agree it's better than .163/.227/.229 or .218/.232/.290. Plus, you know we miss Molina's game calling and defense. Not everyone can have a Barrett. Not to mention that after his first month, his contributions at the plate were more along the lines of .289/.330/.440 (the last two are not calculated, just eyeballed).

Umm...if 2005 isn't over yet, then how can 1995 NOT be in the last ten years?

+++

The Yanks only have so much payroll to play with...we saw that last offseason. They still have some big financial commitments to most of their starting pitchers, they don't have bottomless coffers anymore. IF the Cards are willing to raise payroll, and are willing to pay good money for a top dollar starter, then it's possible someone might want to go to STL over a zoo like the bronx. Then again, that sort of attention might be right up his alley...I don't know the guy, hard to tell. If they aren't, then we aren't seeing Morris back anyway because he's going to be pricey as well...as long as he doesn't have a continue having a complete collapse over the rest of the season

I'm curious, exactly, what you meant by the run support that Carpenter had in each of his games... Did you just give him a five run spot every game? Or did you take the difference between Carpenter's run support and Clemen's and then tack THAT on to the run support he had in each individual game. I think the second would be a much better way to do it...seeing as how if Carpenter had Clemen's average run support for two of his losses, then those would have disappeared as well.

Both Carpenter and Clemens have started 24 games. Carpenter has pitched 16.1 more innings...or about an extra inning over Clemens in seven out of every ten games. Their average pitch counts per start are 103 for Clemens and 106 for Carpenter. Clemens just isn't getting as much mileage out of his pitches for whatever reason...which is extremely odd since Carpenter has more strikeouts AND walks than Clemens, so you would figure that Carpenter would be the one being less effecient. Strange.

Suppan is well worth the option for a couple of reasons. First, his production is a relative bargain at today's inflated pitching prices...almost anyone who's capable of putting up similar numbers that can brought in to replace him would command more money. Second, he's durable...there's a lot to be said for not missing starts, and he hasn't had less that 31 starts since 1999. Third, he's not a dominant pitcher, but he's not intimidated by pitching in big games or against another team's ace. That's also a nice quality to have...just in case. Right now I'm not sold on either Mulder or Marquis. Mulder has been radically inconsistent...but we have him signed for another year, so I'm sure we'll keep him around to see if he can straighten things out. Marquis seems to just pitch stupidly sometimes, and I think he's starting to really get under the skin of the coaches. He's got the talent to me a solid middle of the rotation guy...but does he have the head to harness it? He could either be a solid investment of a waste of money. Honestly, I think the same goes for Morris, except he doesn't have the attitude problems. He was absolutely dominating in the first half, and he has looked awful since...not the best way to set up for an offseason contract. I'd think I'd rather take a flyer on Burnett's health than Morris and his inconsistency if they are both high price tag individuals. I think the bullpen here would help keep Burnett's PC down and his massive leap in GB/FB this year has to be intriguing to the Cards coaching staff...

I just dropped in to say...GO CUBS! Carry on.

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.

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.

Micro-managing to some, successful managing to others. What's wrong with getting a regular some time off during a blowout? Who said pulling Eckstein was a part of reasoning? Pitching around the #8 hitter to get to the pitcher was my reasoning. I'll be more than happy to explain my thesis on why not to pitch around a #8 hitter. I'm sorry, I caught what you were talking about later in the thread. I thought you were talking about switching players around...which is normally what people are complaining about when it comes to micro-managing. That, or the constant changing of relief pitchers for matchup reasons. I'm not watching the game, so I can't talk about how blatant the pitching around was...mlb.com had all the pitches pretty close, but that doesn't really mean anything. Even if it was blatant, you're talking about a reliever who had already thrown an inordinate number of pitches, and who was being kept in to save the bullpen for later in this series on a day when he obviously isn't pitching all that well, so what's the big deal pitching around someone with him to get to someone who can't hit a lick?

Micro-managing to some, successful managing to others. What's wrong with getting a regular some time off during a blowout?

17 pages before the first pitch has been thrown? That has to be some sort of record...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Rolen was traded to StL a little more than halfway through the 2002 season...after which, many of Renteria's defensive statistics improved rather significantly. This current year for Renteria looks suspiciously like the statistics for his 1999 and 2000 years in StL. Coincidence? Perhaps... You be the judge.

What is so funny about this statement? I guess I will take the award if you are going to hand it out though. \:D/ I would first like to thank the mods for allowing me the opportunity to post on this board. I would also like to thank my mom and Dad. Don't worry dad I hope they find a cure for being a Cub fan. I would also like to say I love you to my wife and kids. It's funny becaue the post you're referring to about the injured back reads something like this: "Also, word is that he and ARam have been struggling with sore backs from carrying the Cubs' offense all year." It was a joke.