I couldn't agree more. I always thought Kiko looked great, and had some powerful numbers, especially in the strikeout department. I didn't realize just how underutilized he was. I guess this is just one more reason I don't understand Tony LaRussa. And don't get me wrong, that's not to say I think he should be gone, because I don't think there are many better than him, but he can be frustrating at times because his moves don't always make sense.

I'm pretty sure Calero was given a shot at the Cardinals on the insistence of Mike Matheny. It's surprising when you look back and see how few IP Calero had, but I doubt it's a matter of bad blood between him and LaRussa and more an issue of the setup roles that LaRussa wanted him to pitch in.

Calero started the 2004 season in the minors, rehabbing from his leg injury the year before, and was recalled in early May. He also spent time on the DL from August 7 to September 3. Missing two months would pretty much explain the low number of innings.

Kline missed a month too, and he still got in 67 games. Ray King got in 86 games. Calero got in 41.

Even accounting for the missed time Calero was held out a lot. But you're right it's not as bad as it looks.

Look at the innings, Josh. Those two lefties had defined roles as guys who were supposed to come in and get one or two lefties at a time. Calero's job was to come in a little earlier, usually.

Given the 105 wins posted in 2004, it's hard for me to question LaRussa's usage pattern of his pitching staff.

I should've posted the innings in that last post:

Kline - 50.1
King - 62.0
Calero - 45.1
Eldred - 67.0 (healthy all year)

Had Calero and Kline been healthy all year, I'm guessing their innings would have been right in line with those of King and Eldred.

Kiko hurt himself in KC on June 28. I know, I was there, and it was one of the single most painful moments of 2003 (and there were many, believe me).

Steve: Right so if you have one player whose going to get less innings because that's their role then you have to look at appearences because the innings won't match.

Example: Klines job is to get one batter out (we'll say). He makes 10 appearences. Calero is supposed to go 1 full inning.

If they were used with the same frequency then Calero would have 3 times as many innings as Kline. So you use appearences, the number of times the pitcher ran in from the bullpen. The number of times Tony put them in the game.

By that measure Calero was called on a lot less than King or Kline.

Your point: "Given the 105 wins posted in 2004, it's hard for me to question LaRussa's usage pattern of his pitching staff." has an important unstated assumption that the Cardinals were 105 win team. What if they had more talent than that? If Tony used better pitchers more often they would have won more games.

Jeez, Josh, I thought we had determined that Calero spent two months on the DL. Otherwise, he would have been in 60+ games. Eldred was used in 52 games in a (somewhat) similar role.

As for the number of appearances vs. inings, I think it is fairly widespread that a LOOGY is going to have more appearances than a guy who is expected to pitch an inning or more per outing.

Your suggestion that the Cardinals may have had more talent than their 105 wins makes me think you're trying to pull my leg. In the history of baseball, there have been very few teams with more than 105 wins. To argue that they would have won more games had Tony used better pitchers more often ignores the increased chance of arm injury, fatigue, or the possibility that, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of his staff, he put guys in situations to succeed rather than fail.

Part of the reason the two lefties got so many innings is because they are LEFTIES. Tony loves switching pitchers everytime the numbers say he should, so the lefties got in almost every game whenever a left handed hitter came up in a critical spot. I am a big Calero fan, but part of the reason I am not upset to see him go is that he is already 30 years old. He is NOT a prospect if he is thirty, he probably will not develop to be better than he is already. If he is used more he will put up better numbers, but for right now, for next year, and for five years from now, I'd rather have Mulder.

I was under the impression that going 1 inning wasn't any different workload wise than going 1/3 of an inning. Because of the warm ups required.

"To argue that they would have won more games had Tony used better pitchers more often ignores the increased chance of arm injury"

But to say that the Cardinals won the absolute most games they could have is even worse because it's obvious that a better player playing would make a team win more games, while it's not obvious that the player would be an increased injury risk because of that playing time.

I love Kiko's picture I wonder how anybody got such of great shot with Kiko and Molina. The only thing that makes me happy about Kiko leaving is that now he'll be in the same organization as my brother is. St. Louis made a big mistake when they trade Kiko and Haren. Mulder it's not the same anymore and that's why the A's got ride of him. Haren is going to be a great starting pitcher and I don't believe Eldred can do the job Kiko did. This off season has been pretty bad for St. Louis, they sing a shortstop and gave him 10 million for three years and his arm is worse than my mother, and out of maybe 140 hits he had last year, I'm really not sure, 80 of those were bloopers. St. Louis got ride of Haren, Kiko, Kline, Barton (Prospect catcher) and he's going to be really good, trust me, for who? Mulder who couldn't win a game in the second half last year for nothing, whatever it's crazy and in top of that they didn't sing Edgar or Womack. They should off sing Larkin better and gave Luna more chances in short, he's definitely has better range than Eckstein and Luna will also cost a lot less and hitting wise Luna would probably be a lot better too, I mean a lot better. I think losing all those guys it's really going to hurt St. Louis this year, that's all I have to say.

An especially talented photographer?

thanks again.