Anyone who honestly thinks that the Cardinals offense is only good for 7 more runs than the Cubs offense - even with park factors included - either doesn't follow baseball or has drank too much of the preverbial cubs kool-aid.

Sheehan has never given the Cardinals any credit. Last year, they got lucky, and weren't really THAT good, according to Sheehan. I don't care how lucky you are---you're GOOD if you win 105 games. (And it wasn't just against the sorry-ass NL Central---the Birds destroyed every division they played against.)

Perhaps he thinks that picking against the Cardinals this year, if he's right, will somehow validate last-year's lukewarm opinion.

They said they got a lot of emails from Cardinal fans, probably in part because of that nameless random guy. I suspect they're looking to generate the same attention in 2005 and Sheehan's willing to fudge some projections (again) to get the job done.

At least it's not that hack Goldman.

Sheehan's nuts. And Rob's right, I would without a doubt pay $40 for Pinto before I pay another dime for Prospectus Premium.

What's the big deal? 9 of 12 BP writers picked the Cards to win the division -- do you really think that Sheehan picking them to finish a mere one game behind the Cubs invalidates the entire enterprise?

It doesn't invalidate it, I just take whatever chances I can get to take potshots at Baseball Prospectus.

"do you really think that Sheehan picking them to finish a mere one game behind the Cubs invalidates the entire enterprise?"

Not on it's own, no, but it's the kind of intellectual dishonesty from them of which I've grown weary. With Prior and Wood looking at DL time, it's pretty damn obvious that the Cardinals are the best team on paper in the NL Central. It took some Olympic-level mental gymnastics to run with PECOTA's projections and get *just* enough runs to get that extra win. At least Sheehan could have qualified his pick with "Hey, it's really too close to call", but he didn't even do that -- although he did qualify his Wild Card pick.

If La Russa or Gardenhire or Torre or Jocketty or Stoneman were as cavalier with the numbers as Sheehan -- BPro's lead writer -- is, BPro would be roasting them from here to Poughkeepsie. The thing is though, those old-fogey baseball men aren't preaching VORP and Sheehan is.

I like Click's stuff and Silver's stuff on the odd occasion when he writes. However their most prolific writers -- Sheehan, Goldman (is he gone?), Carroll when he veers into numbers, and Kahrl every now and then -- are less performance analysts and more snarky symbol pushers. There are too many people out there who are simply better at what Baseball Prospectus claims to do.

I'm sorry, Rob, I just don't buy that in the slightest. You're accusing Sheehan of knowing deep down that the Cards are better than the Cubs, but not having the intellectual honesty to fess up to it. What does he have to gain from that?

Maybe I'm defensive because I know Joe personally, but that doesn't sound like him at all. I think you can argue with his reasoning all you want, but I think his conclusions are arrived at honestly.

As for the other three writers you mention -- Goldman, Carroll, and Kahrl -- I have way more problems with them, and I totally agree that their snarkiness gets in the way of their analysis. Goldman is utterly useless.

is the premise that no honest case can possibly be made for picking the cubs to win? i don't think the cubs will win either, but i do think they're damn good. you don't have to be crazy or dishonest to make a case for them as champs.

I think that sheehan takes a contrarian view of things naturally, and because the Cards are the safe pick he shies away from it. But I agree with Brian: It seems like a question of tempermant and not intellectual dishonesty. I think if I were less partisan I could make a strong case that the Cardinals could fall behind the cubs this year. A down year by Rolen, decline by Edmonds and suddenly the Cards offense isn't that potent. Prior and Wood come back healthy, zambrano continues and the cubs are dangerous. I don't believe it but I don't think it's inconcievable that an intelligent person would.

That being said I let my subscription lapse on accident, and I havn't missed it enough to reup.