The loss means the Cardinals are chasing the first place Reds and Brewers. Wait 3 months then read that again, you'll get a chuckle.

Totally unrelated to the Cards game: I think it's a travesty that the Reds don't get to play the first game of the season. For a sport that emphasizes tradition so incessently its especially galling to see baseball whore itself for the quick Red Sox - Yankees buck. The Reds play the first game of the year at home and thats how it should be. Next time you see Selig getting misty eyed over tradition and history remember that he means 'revenue maximizing tradition and history'. Rant over.

So about the Cards game.... Marquis was the starter and everybody's been waiting all summer to find out if he was for real last year or just a fluke.

The advantage of writing this late in the morning the day after the game is that somebody else has done great analysis: Get up Baby has the Marquis Scoop (quoted very liberally):

Jason Marquis had an outing that was equal parts solid and frustrating. Aside from a few pitches that got left up in the zone he had his sinker working extremely well, keeping it low and in the 93-95 range the whole night. His 10:3 groundout/flyout ratio is above what he posted last year. Allowing only one walk was also encouraging; it was pretty much vintage 2004 Marquis all around, right up to the excitable mound demeanor and awesome New York accent.

What's frustrating is his inability to put away batters. He got ahead 0-2 on numerous batters by blowing fastballs by them, but after they caught up and fouled a few off Marquis's dark secret was revealed, as it is whenever he pitches: he has no breaking ball. It's a wonder he does what he does, as both his slider and his brand new curveball pass the plate about as much as Calvin Pickering. The curveball had some nice movement--it resembled Isringhausen's, or Ben Sheets's, with sharp downward movement that almost looked like a forkball. It was in the 75-79 range on the rare occasions he threw it. It was also bouncing 59 feet from where he threw it.

The big story of the game was Julian Tavarez miserable inning (Spread accross two actual innings):

7th
- A. Everett singled to third
- C. Biggio grounded into fielder's choice, W. Taveras to third, A. Everett out at second
- J. Bagwell grounded out to third

8th

- M. Ensberg walked

- C. Burke hit for C. Qualls

- C. Burke popped bunt out to pitcher

- J. Lane singled to left, M. Ensberg to second

- M. Lamb hit for B. Ausmus

- M. Lamb tripled to deep center, M. Ensberg and J. Lane scored

- W. Taveras singled to center, M. Lamb scored

That's 4 hits a walk and no K's. During the game there was some momentum to pull Julian sooner, which I agreed with whole heartedly at the time. But looking back on it I'm not so sure. It's the first game of the season and too quick of a hook now might send Tavarez into a funk (I know, he's a very stable individual, but it could happen). A walk and then a pop up to the pitcher isn't a great start but it's not that bad. The single was a poor omen, but Tavarez still hasn't given up anything hard hit. The the triple that plated two. At this point the damage is done why not leave Tavarez in to salvage the appearence. I can see where being too quick with the hook this early in the season is a bad idea. It's not the playoffs so it's not a live die situation.

I'm trying to understand Larussas thought process and give it a fair appraisal. So I can squint and see some logic too leaving Tavarez in. But then Larussa does something like this that makes me wonder if he's just dumb:(from the Post Dispatch):

La Russa dropped Jim Edmonds to No. 6 in the order because he was one for 22 with six strikeouts lifetime against Pettitte.

Second baseman Mark Grudzielanek took over the fifth spot because "he gives Rolen more protection," La Russa said.

Larussa is really using that stuff? Geez... as salvo said during the game:

Edmonds' 1-for-23 vs. Pettitte is probably almost all pre-2000, and he's taken his hgame to a completely higher level since then, including a .330 avg. vs. lefties in 2004.

Because Pettitte came over to the National League just last year and any meetings between them would have been when Edmonds was an Angel. So old statistics with tiny sample sizes are the basis for lineup choices? This borders on making decisions because the chicken bones came up a certain way. I can't believe he actually looked at those numbers and made that decision. Does the man have any concept of context? It's frightening to think about what type of game time decisions he makes.