Does it FEEL like this team is on pace to win 101 games?

Maybe it's the bad taste left by watching us struggle again against the last-place Phillies, and seeing three straight mediocre-to-awful starts from the rotation. I'm at a point where Matt Morris is inspiring the most confidence in me on game days.

It seems as if, aside from about a 10-day stretch from Pujols, none of our big boppers has gotten into a prolonged hot spell yet. Grudz and Eckstein may not be hitting .300 all year, and if they do drop off, I'm worried about who's going to pick up the slack...

Last year at this point, I was the one typing comments on Redbird Nation similar to what salvo opined above. The Cardinals fell to 22-21 on May 22nd, the day I got to see them lose to the Cubs at Wrigley and they made Glendon Rusch look like he had channeled the skills of Warren Spahn.

I'm much more optimistic this year. Here's why:

(1) They are 25-15 without being all that impressive, as Rob and salvo both wrote.
(2) The divisional opposition is all under .500, and just at the time the Cubs seem to be showing signs of life, they get the White Sox (current winning percentage .707).
(3) We get lots of games against the other 5 "Comedy Central" teams over the remaining 3/4s of the season.
(4) Mabry + Nunez = Rolen? An odd equation at best, but Tony's "keep the reserves ready" formula is working.
(5) I believe the starting pitching's equilibrium is somewhere between the fantastic start and what we've seen over the last week. In other words, I think we can on average expect better from the starters than what we saw in Philly and New York.

Jimmy Edmonds is ready to go on a tear, salvo, and I think Kansas City just might be the right team to start it for him.

TSF

Oops. Correction and addendum to the previous post. The loss on May 22nd of last year dropped the Birds to 23-20, 2 subsequent losses dropped them to 23-22.

From May 25th forward in 2004, the Cardinals went 82-35. To get to 101 in 2005, forward from today, they have to go 76-46.

The Cardinals magic number is 118 not 117.

It is 117 vs. the Brewers, but 118 vs. the Cubs, because the Cubs have one fewer loss than the Brewers.

Yep. Just noticed the 3rd place Cubs had fewer losses than the 2nd place Brewers... until five minutes ago so *now* it is 117. Thanks.

I'd guess the pitching improves from what we've seen the last couple of weeks. I can't tell whether Carpenter's just around the corner from greatness or if he's headed to the DL. He seems to dominate for most of the game, then loses it.

Speaking of corrections, I was hoping someone would tell me I was full of **** when it came to Eckstein's defense. Factoring in defense, he might have to hit .300 just to be an average shortstop.

With respect to the Mabry+Nunez = Rolen... I don't think so. Looking at Nunez's start in Philly on Thursday made me realize just how much we are missing Rolen right now. Nunez was perfectly adequate at third, but guaranteed Rolen would have stopped a number of those grounders that went right by Nunez, not to mention the foul ball that he missed. I actually think that we had a pretty good chance of winning that game if Rolen was at third. Marquis had a horrible outing, but he did manange to induce a ton of ground balls, most of which went by our infield, just to the right or left of Nunez.

I still think the question regarding Eckstein is not directly addressing his contributions to the team, but his in addition to Mulder's compared to say, Renteria or Cabrera. And I'd say that we still got the better deal, whether or not he hits .300.

Jh - good point. The equation I posed was looking at it strictly from an offensive perspective, and while Mabry + Nunez << Rolen in terms of potential, it is safe to say the Birds have not missed Rolen's bat thus far.

Rob - Sunday's game was Exhibit A with regard to your Eckstein analysis, yes?

TSF

I didn't see Sunday's game, but I heard about it. Obviously I'm not feeling better. I start to wonder about John Nelson.