January 29, 2005
Sosa Traded
As you've probably read elsewhere tonight, the Cubs have all but traded Sammy Sosa today to the Baltimore Orioles for Jerry Hairston Jr. (he of the .261/.334/.371 career line) and a couple of minor leaguers.
Cubs fans I've spoken with act as though it's a burden lifted off their team's shoulders -- and the bolder ones have even claimed the Central Division title already for the Cubs. Over at ESPN.com, Jayson Stark writes the along similar lines; however, he does note that the Cubs do need to do better in the outfield than Todd Hollandsworth and/or Jason Dubois. And ESPN/Chicago Tribune writer Phil Rogers boo-hooes the deal, calling it a "dump job."
In other forums, The Cub Reporter gets into some more specifics of the deal, with some commentary about what might result from it, while View From the Bleachers merely says "wait and see."
In my opinion, Sosa for Hairston obviously doesn't improve the Cubs on paper, even if they do end up acquiring an Aubrey Huff type to replace him -- Hairston just isn't that good. With several over-40 types still going strong in today's majors, who's to say Sosa is past his prime at 36? While Sosa and Dusty Baker have certainly had their troubles, thus making it perhaps a little less likely Sosa would play well as a Cub (according to many Cubs fans I've heard from, anyway), I still feel that Sosa's production with the Orioles could be good enough that the Cubs will regret this deal for years to come.
Your thoughts?
Next time someone says....
that ballplayers are greedy SOBs who get paid way too much money, you might want to refer them to a recent Hardball Times article by John Brattain. In it, Brattain makes an observation that everyone bitching about ballplayer salaries needs to contemplate: If the ballplayers didn't get that money, think of who would.
As an example, here's Brattain talking about "The Stadium Scam":
Let’s look a little closer shall we? For a small market to “be competitive” what does our fair commissioner say is required?Go read the whole thing; it's a bit long, but well worth it.A new stadium!
However, since the poor owner is eating Fancy Feast with his fingers while living in a beat up cardboard box under a bridge, he cannot afford to build one himself. So, off he goes, hat in hand to the local politicos and says: “Help, I‘m going broke, the players are too greedy, the Yankees and Mets are buying all the best players, and I really, really, really want to win a World Series for our fair region because I really, really, really love it here and would like nothing better than to deliver a winner for the good folks here. If it‘s not too much trouble, could you take some money out of the school budget, healthcare, infrastructure, libraries and social assistance and slip me a few hundred million? That way I can increase payroll and stop trading our best players to the Yankees. Best of all, I‘ve hired a friend who has crunched the numbers and if you do this, your city will become El Dorado.”
“Oh yeah, if you don’t cough up the dough, I’m out of this loser borough.”
Well, community after community did just that and gosh darn it, look at the turnaround in the so-called “small market” teams since the strike:
- The Reds moved into the Great American Ballpark and are 69-93 and 78-84 and still look to keep their payroll low.
- The Brewers moved into Miller Park and are 68-94, 56-106, 68-94, and 67-94 and have featured among the lowest payrolls in MLB.
- The Pirates moved into PNC Park and are 62-100, 72-89, 75-87, and 72-89 and traded their two highest salaried players in recent seasons (Jason Kendall and Brian Giles).
- The Tigers moved into Comerica Park and are 79-83, 66-96, 52-109, 43-119, and 72-90 and announced a payroll freeze their first year in the new park.
Granted Cleveland, Baltimore, Texas, Houston, Seattle and Atlanta have enjoyed success, but bear in mind however that the Indians, Astros, Mariners and Braves already had assembled solid rosters before their parks opened and Baltimore didn’t reach the post season until five years passed from the opening of Camden Yards. Conversely, as we mentioned earlier the teams that have been competitive (Twins, Angels, A‘s, Marlins) are -- excluding Anaheim -- clubs that can’t “compete” because of playing in ‘economically obsolete’ facilities.
Since many teams with new stadiums are struggling on the field and teams with older facilities are doing well, we can safely assume that a “competitive club” from Selig’s standpoint means a new stadium, a .500 record, a 20% drop in attendance, and all the club seats and luxury boxes are leased. New stadiums aren’t about “being competitive” -- good management will accomplish that -- it’s about free money, corporate welfare, and higher profits from gorging oneself into a stupor (which explains a lot) at the public teat.
January 28, 2005
You Think Baseball Has Problems
I was listening to the news on the Deutsche Welle and I could tell there was something very bad going on in German soccer, but I don't know the German word for "game-fixing". From the San Francisco Chronicle:
The president of the German soccer federation says players could have been part of a game-fixing scandal involving a referee, a newspaper reported Friday, and FIFA wants the case resolved quickly with the World Cup just more than a year away... The scandal is the worst corruption case to hit Germany in more than 30 years. In 1971, 53 players from seven clubs received penalties ranging from fines to life bans. Two clubs, Arminia Bielefeld and Kickers Offenbach, were demoted and their presidents and coaches suspended.
While it apparently didn't affect any first division matches, Germany is arguably the top soccer power in Europe and probably will be a favorite to win the World Cup in 2006, so this isn't a soccer backwater. It's to MLB's credit that it's almost impossible imagine to something like this in baseball today, or for that matter in 1971. It's also an excellent reminder of why Pete Rose's crime was taken so seriously.
January 27, 2005
Jocketty
The Birdhouse pointed out a Bob Nightengale column in Sports Weekly in which we learn Jocketty's getting lowball offers from the Cardinals. A Google news search (Google in general is the greatest thing ever, and Google News in particular is cool beyond words) turns up this link. Thus spaketh Bob Nightengale:
St. Louis offered Jocketty a three-year, $2.1 million extension — paying him $650,000, $700,000 and $750,000 — well below market price considering Jocketty's tenure. Jocketty, 54, not only would remain one of the lowest-paid GMs in baseball, but he would be paid nearly one-third of what GMs John Hart of Texas and David Dombrowski of Detroit get. They earn $2 million a year.
I don't know what to make of these rumors. It's possible that the numbers are wrong and it's possible that the rumor of Jocketty replacing Garagiola is just a negotiating ploy. Again I don't know, but if the reported numbers are accurate, then ownership isn't that interested in retaining Jocketty and Jocketty's been on the other side of the table enough to recognize that.
LaRussa of course already has his big extension, which suggests the Cardinals are taking the anti-Moneyball approach of prizing their field manager and regarding their front office talent as easily replaceable.
That's (Finally) A Winner!
The National Association of Broadcasters announced Thursday that Jack Buck will be inducted into NAB Broadcasting Hall of Fame.
"The NAB Hall of Fame is not complete without Jack Buck. He was truly one-of-a-kind in sports broadcasting. We're pleased that NAB can honor his legacy," said John David, NAB executive vice president for radio.
So this is what Mike Shannon meant when he said, "the longtime, and soon-to-be, Hall-of-Famer."
We miss you, Jack.
Reverse Psychology
Uh-oh. In what is either finespun voodoo or a stumbling drunk right cross at the Tribune Co., the Chicago Sun-Times has picked the Cardinals to win the NL Central in 2005.
Outlook: The pressure is on Eckstein, who hit .276 with two homers, 35 RBI and 92 runs and was the second-hardest player to strike out in the AL, with 49 in 566 at-bats. The most dangerous hitters in the lineup (Larry Walker, Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds) return, though Pujols is troubled by chronic pain in his left heel. Promising Yadier Molina, 23, replaces Matheny behind the plate.Bottom line: The Cardinals have a deeper rotation than the Cubs, a better lineup and a legitimate closer. They won't win 105 games again, but they should rule the Central even with 10 fewer victories.
The Cubs meanwhile, aren't, um, any better. In fact, they're worse.
Bottom line: This is a weaker team than what the Cubs opened with last season.
As their former eyesore of a headquarters is razed by Hollywood D-lister and Apprentice-winner, Bill Rancic, in favor of a newer, taller Trumptastic eyesore, the Sun-Times also predicted the Pittsburgh Steelers would win the Super Bowl.
Let's hope they're half-right.
Shortstop Shuffle
ESPN posted an article today about the three-way shortstop "trade" of Boston, Anaheim, and St. Louis this offseason. Unfortunately for me, I don't subscribe, so I couldn't read the whole article, but in the preview of the article, Karabell says "Did they end up with the best one? Nope. They ended up with Eckstein, by far the best bargain." He makes a good point. Obviously we're sad to see Edgar go - He's a great hitter and a gold-glover. But he's not 3 times as good as Eckstein.
Now, MO Boiler already wrote an excellent, detailed review of this roster move. But I thought with Spring Training now just around the corner, it didn't hurt to be reminded of that fact. In general, this has been a quiet off-season for the Cardinals, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good one. Salary data isn't so easy to find these days, but I think despite a handful of raises due to key players this year, Walt's managed to stick a few bucks in his back pocket for a rainy day, which can't be underestimated. Remember in '03 when ownership said there was no money, and then finally opened up for Mike DeJean (1-1, 4.00) and Sterling Hitchcock (5-1, 3.79) at the last minute? It was apparently already too late by then, and we missed our only playoffs in the last 5 years. But in those other 4 seasons we always had a significant mid-season pickup. In 2000 it was Will Clark (345/426/655) and Mike Timlin (3-1, 3.34) coming over in July. In 2001 we got Woody Williams in August (7-1, 2.28). 2002 brought us a boatload: Scott Rolen (278/354/561) and Chuck Finley (7-4, 3.80) in July, plus Jeff Fassero (3-0, 3.00) and Jamey Wright (2-0, 4.80) in August. And of course last year, we scored Larry Walker (280/393/560) in August. It goes to show that some of Walt's best work is done in July and August, not November and December.
Cardinals Hitters in Fantasy Baseball
So I know it’s way too early to be planning for fantasy baseball, but it’s a little slow these days waiting for pitchers and catchers, so I thought I’d talk over where your favorite Cardinals fit. It’s always hard to be objective thinking about your favorite players, so the conventional wisdom is to just take a pass on them. I know I’ve gotten burned in the past, taking Edgar Renteria at the top of the third round in a 12 team ML universe just last year, or Matt Morris in the fifth. However, the flip side of this allows you to pick up players that may be able to contribute that other managers may not have heard of, or have forgotten. Andy Benes in 2003 when he came back was a tremendous boost down the stretch, and Albert Pujols was of course the best free agent pickup ever when I got him after seeing him thrash Randy Johnson in only his second game. So caution, and a bit of pessimism can temper the heart and cool the head, and let you get on with putting a championship team together. Since the Cardinals are coming off of a World Series appearance and have a reputation as a strong lineup, look for inflation to bump up your favorite hitter at least half a round or more.
In these predictions, I’m going mostly on the basis of a 5x5 twelve team ML universe league in a serpentine draft setup. I’ll do the hitters today, and the pitchers when I get back from Vegas. The predictions are in the form AVE/R/RBI/HR/SB.
C Mike Matheny is gone, but his legacy lives on. Yadier Molina doesn’t have much of a track record, but some of the projections I’ve seen for him would make the Optimists Association of America (OAOA) scoff. Not a threat to be valuable in any category, his youth and health can only hurt you, as being in your lineup a lot could be worse than an empty slot. Do not draft under any circumstances. Playing five days a week, .250/40/45/4/2.
1B Albert Pujols. The cream of the crop. No one no matter the lineup, no matter the league, no matter the home park he is going to put up the raw numbers. A four category player due to be taken in the top two or three picks in any league. The plantar fasciitis that didn’t slow him last year is still there, so he may miss a few more games than the most durable players. He’s shown very little variation in performance, and is still very young no matter his real age, so he’s a close to a lock as there is in fantasy baseball. His relatively low walk rate for someone of his power gives more weight to his already considerable average, and hitting behind Larry Walker for the whole season should be better than being behind Edgar Renteria. The biggest strike against him is that you can pick a first baseman up six rounds later to give you 80% of his value. But with no superstar close to his total value at one of the harder to fill positions such as shortstop or second base, and no sure thing at pitcher, you pick the best single player and turn your eyes to the second round. Playing 145 games, .335/115/130/49/3.
2B With Alomar signed to Tampa, Grudzielanek looks to have the second base job locked up. Tony LaRussa however, rarely hands a job to a player of Grudz’s talent (or contract) without some kind of competition. Look for the Cardinals to take a flyer on at least one other middle infielder, most likely a gritty veteran. Grudz’s skills have been all over the place in the past, and he’s leaving Wrigley where he’s hit well in the past. He figures to hit low in the order, with only Molina behind him, and to lose at least a start a week to Miscellaneous Middle Infielder to Be Named. Not really worth a look except as a low teen NL only or a very late round pick in MI leagues. Playing in about 125 games, .265/70/60/6/8.
3B Scott Rolen is the cream of the third base crop, but there are several third basemen who can give you a reasonable approximation of Scotty. Reputation as a complete player can inflate the cost of a fantasy player, but fantasy managers get no value from his glove. I don’t believe that last year represented a leap forward for Scott, so don’t look for him to compete for the RBI title again. Look more for the numbers he put up in 2003 and before with the Cardinals. He’s a solid mid third round to early fourth round pick in ML but a good late first round pick in NL only as the NL third basemen are a thin bunch. Playing in 155 games, he’ll go .290/100/110/28/7.
SS David Eckstein looks to be a mundane but safe pick at shortstop. He’ll play a lot of games, hit a lot of balls, and very few of them will go all that far. Not really a stolen base threat anymore, he figures to run enough in the first two or three months to be on a 20-25 SB pace. But something about LaRussa says that stealing before the All-Star break is OK, but verboten after. His slightly over league average OBP at the top of a good lineup figures to get him some R, but you should never pay for R, everybody gets them but nobody really excels at it like the do in the other categories. You probably won’t be able to draft Eckstein, as someone will take him before the thirteenth round where he deserves to go. However, he has an everyday job, which is far more valuable in NL only leagues, and should go at better than half that. Getting the start every day, look for 158 games, and .265/105/30/2/12.
OF Reggie Sanders is one of those players that the savvy figure to try and take a late flyer on based on his every-other-year stats. My gut tells me that the every-other-year guys stop their pattern eventually, so look out. He’ll split his job with John Mabry and whatever else Tony has on his bench, so five starts a week is the most you can hope for barring an injury or a huge year. Not really a threat to hit thirty HR with the split playing time, his low OBP and the guys behind him will make him a bit of a liability in R, to go with an AVE that won’t help your team. Don’t get blinded by the HR, the small losses you’ll take in the other categories will hurt more than he can help. That being said, a late round flyer can pay off like it did in 2003, but someone else will most likely overdraft him based on lineup and history. A modern day Ron Gant, he’ll get about 125 games, and go .250/60/75/22/15.
OF Jim Edmonds is always been a favorite of mine, since he’s mostly been undervalued during his time with the Cards due to a perceived injury problem. He’s no more prone to catastrophic injury than any other player, and his counting stats easily justify his draft position even if he doesn’t play 150+ games. If you don’t play with CF, then his defense will only drive up his cost and lower his playing time, as he always seems to miss a game here or there from running into walls or diving for balls. You can’t expect 40+ HR from him every year, so pencil in more like 35. As a Cardinal fan, Jim is more valuable to you than to other managers, as the Post usually tells you when he’s sitting out, so you can shuffle in a backup if you’re in a daily league. He worth a mid sixth round pick to most people, and a mid fifth if you read the Post Dispatch every morning. His playing time can be a bit bi-modal, but I’m betting on 145 games and .290/90/100/35/4.
OF Larry Walker is a risky pick for more reasons than injury or leaving Colorado. Most of his value these days is tied up in OBP, and unless your league plays that, you’ll only see it in the halo effect it has on his R. The bottom of the Cardinals order looks dismal, so his RBI outlook is not good, and his power decline has been masked by Coors field. Don’t draft him looking for 30 HR or a .330 AVE and you won’t be disappointed. His risk level is high, but so is his ceiling. He didn’t play a full season last year, so he’ll get lost in some rankings. He could go as high as the sixth round in some leagues, or fall into the thirteenth. A tenth round pick should be a good balance of risk and reward, but don’t leave yourself without a backup plan. I’m betting on some nagging injuries to bring his games played down a bit to around 130, so .300/95/85/23/10.
Bench players: There are no sleepers on the bench like rookies looking for playing time or journeymen who might bust out. John Mabry revived his career last season, and his .296/.363/.504 would from last year would look great as a full timer, but he’s been let go a lot of times in the past and won’t be able to get the full time job or a repeat performance. Cedeno is little more than a reserve with no chance of getting the job even with a major injury to a starter. Taguchi figures to get some games even without a serious injury to Edmonds, but even a full time job won’t make him valuable enough to keep on your roster. Einar Diaz could get serious reps behind the plate if Molina struggles, but doesn’t figure to hit any better (or really any worse given his track record). I’m betting the Hector Luna will start the season in AAA to get more seasoning, and will only break camp with the team if either of the two starters have poor springs.
So far, the Cards hitters have been poor prospects for drafting. The Cards hitters are all well known, and suffer from World Series inflation, and even the best picks like Rolen and Edmonds can only repay your investment. Only Pujols looks to be a solid pick regardless of inflation, only because he can’t be drafted higher than first. The Cards don’t have an rookies or young players that figure to bust out, so for the most part what you see is what you get. However, in pitching, the Cards are a treasure seekers goldmine. Roundly criticized for not being able to pitch last postseason, most of the starters will be going for less than they’re worth.
Links
I added a few new Cardinals Blog links over on the left there:
The Cardinal Virtue and Curve Blog.
I also wanted to take the time to point a few things out. The birdwatch has a couple of RSS feeds, the first is Headlines and Excerpts suitable for My Yahoo or if you just want to see new articles as they come up and read them on the site itself. The second is Full articles with comments which means it pulls the full articles (graphics included) and any comments. Plus anytime somebody posts a comment it will update the feed and show as new so you can follow along with comments without having to revisit each article (This is how I read the site and it's fantastic). In addition every entry has a feed that contains just comments to that entry, so if you wanted to watch comments on a specific discussion you could subscribe to just those comments.
And on one last RSS note: I don't go to websites anymore. It's too much hassle to remember which sites I want to manually visit. Unfortunatly that means I miss some stuff, most glaringly: Get Up Baby, probably my favorite Cardinals blog, which I only read about once a month. Luckily Dan has finally published an rss feed! Rejoice! Thanks Dan!
If you need an RSS reader I can't recommend Bloglines enough. Seriously, change your life.
They read it for the articles
I think this interview on Athletics Nation with Billy Beane has been brought up before here but I don't think this part has ever come up:
Someone emailed me something written on a Cardinals' blog, and they had nailed all the things we were talking about. The economic reasons, the personnel reasons and the reasons we made the exchange.
Really? I'd be very curious to find out which blog Beane is referring too. It's interesting how short the feedback loops are these days though.
January 26, 2005
The Cardinals Care, They Really DO Care
Well, actually you care, or you and 164,999 of your Monster Thickburger-eating, redblooded, Redbird friends.
St. Louis-based Hardee's, a division of west coast burger emporium Carl's Jr., donated more than $165,000 to the St. Louis Cardinals community foundation, Cardinals Care.
| The proceeds will be used to support the foundation's new youth baseball program, "Redbird Rookies." The program provides equipment and uniforms, as well as off-field health and mentoring support, for more than 2,000 boys and girls throughout the St. Louis area, the organization said. Fans in the St. Louis area, as well as Cardinals supporters in 29 other states, were able to make a $1 donation at Hardees restaurants for each red band. |
You might have seen or actually purchased one of the red wristbands which surfaced near the end of the Cardinals pennant-push in 2004 and are basically red rubberband knockoffs of the yellow Lance Armstrong/Nike "Live Strong" wristbands which benefit the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF).
So far I've seen bands for diabetes, breast cancer, LAF, Cardinals Care, U.S. troops, Tsunami victims, and, of course, the general tolerance of everyone who wears a wristband. Along with the ribbon magnets, which somehow manage to adorn every single minivan and SUV in the midwest (sometimes thrice), wristbands seem to be taking over the United States.
I'm hoping to purchase a wristband/car ribbon magnet package that communicates my undying support for wristband and ribbon magnet manufacturers.
Beyond DIPS
Voros McCracken's DIPS is the latest and greatest publicly available method for figuring out how a good a pitcher really is. Voros parlayed his discovery that pitchers have little control over balls-in-play into a gig with the Boston Red Sox -- I assume he got a ring -- and so he's no longer sharing his findings with the general public.
One problem with Voros's work was that he treated Jim Edmonds-robbing-Jason LaRue the same as a little tapper back to the mound. In theory they'd equal out over a season, but it's not necessarily the case. David Pinto has been crunching the numbers, finding which pitchers got more or less help from their defense. According to Pinto's work, Suppan, Carpenter and Mulder all got a few extra outs from their defense in 2004, but Morris and Marquis weren't so lucky. Pinto's also verified that the Cardinals' defense was very good, maybe the best in baseball last season.
January 25, 2005
Projecting
Baseball Prospectus has made their 2005 PECOTA projections available.
So what does the Magic BP 8-Ball see for the Cardinals? A quick overview:
First off there are two players PECOTA sees as head and shoulders above the rest of baseball: Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols. Both project at a VORP of ~85, and the next closest players clock in at ~60 (this doesn't take away the fact that in some respects Sean is better).
Yadier Molina projects at just about 0 VORP, but get this: Daric Barton projects at 22.4 runs above replacement. Wow. Is Barton ready to outperform Molina this year? If so the Mark Mulder trade is looking worse than we originally thought.
Speaking of Mulder, PECOTA sees him at 30.8 VORP on 182 innings pitched. Call him half a Randy. Good enough for 25th best pitcher in the Majors. Of Course PECOTA thinks Matt Morris can pull off a 20 VORP season this year, so who knows. The interesting bits about those pitchers are their collapse rates: Morris is pegged at 20% and Mulder at 13%.
Collapse Rate is the percent chance that a pitcher's PERA will increase by at least 25% relative to his Baseline. High collapse rates are indicative of downside risk.
13% is actually very low as the values bottom out at around 10%, 20% seems high but it still means there are around 550 pitchers that PECOTA thinks have a higher chance of bombing out than Morris. Of course with a 4.72 ERA last year it isn't exactly a fall from olympian heights if he does collapse.
PECOTA thinks Danny Haren will be slightly more valuable than Jason Marquis and and Jeff Suppan this year (17.7 vs 16.6 and 17.5 respectivly).
The big story from these numbers is how advanced PECOTA sees the two prosepects the Cardinals traded away. I don't know anyone who thinks Barton could play this year, but PECOTA thinks he could, and fairly well. I've always thought Mulder was a good deal that could work out horribly, and numbers like this reinforce that notion.
January 24, 2005
Albert, Scott & Company
Aaron Gleeman, writing for The Hardball Times, posted an article yesterday singing the praises of Mr. Pujols. In it, Gleeman compares Pujols' accomplishments to those of DiMaggio, Foxx, Cobb, Mathews, Ott, Mantle, Williams, and A-Rod in celebration of Albert's 24th birthday (not without making a remark questioning that age, of course).
Also, over at ESPN.com, Tim Kurkjian praises Scott Rolen for his skill at breaking up the double play, with the requisite line about how Rolen "plays the game the way it's supposed to be played." Never mind taking out infielders, I'll take the .300/30/100 -- that's how the game's supposed to be played.
Downtime
Just wanted to chime in here and say that the birdwatch was down for a few hours this morning due to undisclosed technical problems (our webhost had something happen but we havn't been able to get ahold of them and find out what).
Everything is back to normal now though, so continue enjoying your day.
January 23, 2005
Bullpen 2005
Dan over at Get Up Baby analyzes the 2003, 2004 and 2005 bullpens for the Cards. Any time a team piles up 105 regular season wins there will be positive surprises, things like Tony Womack filling the leadoff role admirably, So Taguchi parking Kyle Farnsworth's Porsche on Waveland and John Mabry posting an 867 OPS. But the leader in Good Headshake Moments had to be the bullpen, which went from horribly, grotesquely, stupendously bad to one of the most reliable in the business. The shift from 2003 to 2004 was simply violent.
Somebody needs to get a few beers into Jocketty and ask him what the heck changed. Was it just luck, bad one year and good the next? Was the improvement due to input from Ron Shandler and Mark Johnson? Did they hire "the fat scout" from "Moneyball" (a.k.a. the scout who found Tim Hudson)? Did LaRussa or Duncan have more input? Less input? For better and for worse Jocketty doesn't have Beane's ego, so it may take years rather than beers to get the whole story, but it's a story I'd love to hear anyway.
Stolen Thunder
I know, I know, Stolen Thunder sounds like the next crappy film to come out of the Project Greenlight franchise, but if the resulting movie has anything to do with the Cardinals reclaiming their place in baserunning history, then I'll be first in line to buy a ticket.
But the Cardinals are baserunning, you say. What about Enos Slaughter's "Mad Dash", Lou Brock (the all-time NL stolen base king), and the Running Redbirds of the 80s? I would have said there is no need to convince me, but after the great October Collapse and a pair of columns by ESPN.com columnist and Kansas City Royals fan, Rob Neyer, this week, I'm not so sure anymore.
Yes, Neyer seems to secretly relish taking the Redbirds down a notch whenever he has the chance. In fact, in his columns on baserunning this past week he managed to take jabs at Lou Brock's legacy AND question whether he really was much of an effective base-runner.
Wills played his last game in 1972 (and managed to steal only one base in 71 games). And while there really wasn't another player quite like him – Lou Brock stole a lot of bases, especially in 1974, but was he really that exciting? – a style of baseball was invented (or perhaps reinvented) by Pete Rose and his teammates in Cincinnati.
Neyer seems to have an inferiority complex when it comes to the Redbirds, possibly because everyone and their brother has told him that the Royals didn't deserve to win the 1985 World Series (thanks to Don Denkinger, the Redbirds' version of Steve Bartman), but I digress.
In this case he might have a point.
One my first memories as a baseball fan is attending Lou's last game in 1979. My devotion to Lou grew to the point that sometime within the next few years I would trade Rickey Henderson's rookie card for Bob Horner's because I believed in the power of The Franchise. Despite Rickey's prodigious accomplishments over the next two decades and his unwavering insistence on referring to himself in the third person, Sean never doubted that Lou was the King. After all, while Lou (12) and Rickey (13) are the only two players in Major League history with at least 12 seasons with 50 or more stolen bases, Lou did it 12 times in a row (Rickey only 7).
Then Sean saw this chart.
Name SB CS Pct. Rickey Henderson 1406 335 80.8% Lou Brock 938 307 75.3% Billy Hamilton 912 ??? Ty Cobb 892 ??? Tim Raines 808 146 84.7%
Suddenly, Lou didn't seem to compare to Rock Raines. Sure, he stole 100 more bases, but he was also caught stealing 150 more times, too.
So what's more important, the number of stolen bases or the number of times caught? If John Mabry had stolen 5 bases and been caught zero times (Sean knows, not likely), would you rather have him on 2nd with 2 outs than someone like Reggie Sanders who had stolen 25 bases and been caught 10 times? Probably not.
Fortunately, as Neyer points out, there's a measure for how important stolen bases are.
"Stolen Base Runs," a method devised by Pete Palmer and based on the assumption that 66 percent is roughly the break-even point, weights the steals and the caughts to arrive at the number of runs all those attempts really led to. From the 2004 edition of Total Baseball, here are the eight players with at least 60 career Stolen Base Runs:Name SB SBR Rickey Henderson 1406 159 Tim Raines 808 112 Willie Wilson 668 87 Vince Coleman 752 86 Joe Morgan 689 79 Davey Lopes 557 71 Lou Brock 938 68 Ozzie Smith 580 61
Wow. Lou drops to 7th! Vincent Van Go jumps to 4, just behind Willie Wilson. And there's the Wizard, just below Lou. Sean's mind is in a tizzy. All along he thought Lou was the pinnacle of Cardinal base-running, but it appears that not only do the members of the Running Redbirds have him trumped, but so does Davey Lopes.
There's only one problem. Neyer's numbers are wrong.
Oh, he's got the right numbers for stolen bases, but the Stolen Base Runs numbers are calculated incorrectly.
A little background on how Stolen Base Runs (SBR) are calculated, from Dan Fox at Dan Agonistes.
Stolen bases and caught stealing can also be taken out of the Batting Runs formula and be calculated separately as Stolen Base Runs (SBR) or Base Stealing Runs (BSR) as (.30*SB)-(.60*CS). Originally, the value of the stolen base and caught stealing was set at around .20 and -.35 respectively. However, Palmer was convinced by Dave Smith of Retrosheet to increase both the positive and negative impacts of the stolen base on the basis that they occur in situations where games are more in question. In other words, stolen bases are strategically more important and so have a greater impact on wins and losses. Not many people seem to buy this argument since runs and not wins are what is being calculated. Apparently, Palmer agreed and so in The 2004 Baseball Encyclopedia BSR is simply calculated as (.22*SB)-(.38*CS).
So Neyer's chart should read something like this:
Name SB CS Pct. SBR SBR Rickey Henderson 1406 335 80.8% 182 159 Tim Raines 808 146 84.7% 122 112 Vince Coleman 752 177 80.9% 98 87 Willie Wilson 668 134 83.3% 96 86 Joe Morgan 689 162 81.0% 90 79 Lou Brock 938 307 75.3% 90 71 Davey Lopes 557 114 83.0% 79 68 Ozzie Smith 580 148 79.7% 71 61
Granted, Lou's success ratio didn't magically improve, but it bumps him up to tied for 5th with Joe Morgan in Stolen Base Runs. Ozzie clocks in at 7th.
But what about the rest of Cardinals?
Here all-time Cardinal basestealers (modern-day stats only, as Caught Stealing stats weren't consistently tracked until after WWII) ranked by career SBR.
CAREER CARDINAL Player SB CS Pct. SBR SB CS Pct. SBR V Coleman 752 177 80.9% 98 549 115 82.7% 77 L Brock 938 307 75.3% 90 888 285 75.7% 87 O Smith 580 148 79.7% 71 433 102 80.9% 57 A Van Slyke 245 59 80.6% 31 104 26 80.0% 13 W McGee 352 121 74.4% 31 301 97 75.6% 29 L Smith 370 140 72.5% 28 173 63 73.3% 14 E Renteria 237 89 72.7% 18 148 50 74.7% 14 T Herr 188 64 74.6% 17 152 51 74.9% 14 R Lankford 258 117 68.8% 12 250 115 68.5% 11 J Javier 135 63 68.2% 6 134 63 68.0% 6 T Pendleton 127 59 68.3% 6 99 48 67.3% 4
No big surprises here, and note how top heavy the list is with Running Redbirds. Seven out of the top 11 are from the 1980s teams (Vince Coleman, Ozzie Smith, Andy Van Slyke, Willie McGee, Lonnie Smith, Tommie Herr, and Terry Pendleton. And it appears El Birdos just let one of the organization's best basestealers in history go. Edgar, good luck to you in Beantown.
Your 2005 Cardinals are a far cry from 20 years ago, but the team did manage to generate 7 Stolen Base Runs last year (as opposed to say, the 33 SBR the 1985 Cards scraped together).
Career Cardinals Player SB CS Pct. SBR SB CS Pct. SBR R Cedeno 213 61 77.7% 24 5 1 83.3% 1 R Sanders 283 106 72.8% 22 21 5 80.8% 3 L Walker 228 75 75.2% 22 4 0 100.0% 1 M Grudzielanek 117 41 74.1% 10 0 0 0.0% 0 D Eckstein 82 27 75.2% 8 0 0 0.0% 0 S Rolen 91 33 73.4% 7 20 8 71.4% 1 S Taguchi 7 3 70.0% 0 7 3 70.0% 0 B Hart 3 1 75.0% 0 3 1 75.0% 0 H Luna 6 3 66.7% 0 6 3 66.7% 0 A Pujols 13 13 50.0% -2 13 13 50.0% -2 J Mabry 7 12 36.8% -3 3 9 25.0% -3 J Edmonds 54 41 56.8% -4 28 17 62.2% 0
Remember the other day? When Sean was bitching about how Albert Pujols makes the comman man look pathetic? Sean thinks he's finally found something most people are better at than King Albert.
Sean's Career Stolen Base Runs = 0. Albert's = -2.
Anyway, much is made of the Cardinals' loss of defensive presence up the middle this offseason, but they also lost two very good baserunners in E-Rent (Career 237/89/72.7%/18) and T-Dub (Career 335/68/83.1%/48). Yes, Eck and Grudz are decent baserunners in their own right, and having Booger around for the better part of the season should help, but of the team's 7 SBR last year, 4 of them were created by Tony Womack.
So is the 2005 team going to be a better baserunning squad? Are they going to avoid the mistakes that may have cost them the Series in 2004 and go on to take their first title in 23 years?
These are questions Sean poses to you, dear reader. Tony La Russa does seem to have adjusted his mentality to more of a small ball/National League approach, but that doesn't mean the spirit of Wave 'Em Home Wendell isn't somehow inhabiting Jose Oquendo's body.
As for Mr. Neyer, he does rank two Cardinals in his list of all-time basestealers...
1. Rickey Henderson
2. Tim Raines
3. Vince Coleman
4. Joe Morgan
5. Max Carey
6. Willie Wilson
7. Ty Cobb
8. Lou Brock
9. Davey Lopes
10. Billy Hamilton
So, maybe he isn't so much pissed about the Don Denkinger fiasco but instead all of the money he lost investing in the Brock-a-brella.
More fun with charts...
Cardinals Team Stolen Base Records Since Last World Series Appearance
Year SB CS Pct. SBR 1982* 200 91 68.7% 9 1983 207 89 69.9% 12 1984 220 71 75.6% 21 1985* 314 96 76.6% 33 1986 262 78 77.1% 28 1987* 248 72 77.5% 27 1988 234 64 78.5% 27 1989 155 54 74.2% 14 1990 221 74 74.9% 21 1991 202 110 64.7% 3 1992 208 118 63.8% 1 1993 153 72 68.0% 6 1994 76 46 62.3% -1 1995 79 46 63.2% 0 1996* 149 58 72.0% 11 1997 164 60 73.2% 13 1998 133 41 76.4% 14 1999 134 48 73.6% 11 2000* 87 51 63.0% 0 2001+ 91 35 72.2% 7 2002* 86 42 67.2% 3 2003 82 32 71.9% 6 2004* 111 47 70.3% 7*1st Place +Tied for 1st/Wildcard
Best Teams by Stolen Bases Per Game (SB/G) in History of MLB
Team G SB CS SB/G SBR Cincinnati Reds 18294 16086 --- 0.88 St. Louis Cardinals 18296 15840 --- 0.87 Kansas City Royals 5695 4857 2146 0.85 253 Los Angeles Dodgers 18271 15434 --- 0.84 San Francisco Giants 18246 15008 --- 0.82 Washington Nationals 5702 4564 2058 0.80 222 Chicago Cubs 18261 14121 --- 0.77 Houston Astros 6842 5267 2409 0.77 243 Pittsburgh Pirates 18254 14004 --- 0.77 Florida Marlins 1877 1414 627 0.75 73 Chicago White Sox 16170 11857 --- 0.73 Seattle Mariners 4411 3129 1480 0.71 126 Philadelphia Phillies 18263 12907 --- 0.71 San Diego Padres 5706 3983 1927 0.70 144 Colorado Rockies 1881 1310 661 0.70 37 Toronto Blue Jays 4413 3050 1405 0.69 137 Atlanta Braves 18223 12574 --- 0.69 Tampa Bay Devil Rays 1131 774 349 0.68 38 Milwaukee Brewers 5702 3766 2035 0.66 55 Oakland Athletics 16137 10456 --- 0.65 Minnesota Twins 16182 10445 --- 0.65 New York Yankees 16150 10138 --- 0.63 Detroit Tigers 16200 9931 --- 0.61 Cleveland Indians 16176 9894 --- 0.61 New York Mets 6833 3900 2115 0.57 54 Anaheim Angels 7000 3967 2309 0.57 -5 Baltimore Orioles 16176 9023 --- 0.56 Texas Rangers 6987 3877 2149 0.55 36 Arizona Diamondbacks 1133 599 275 0.53 27 Boston Red Sox 16162 7872 --- 0.49
January 21, 2005
Grumpy Old Men
The Rocket agreed to a 1-year pact with the 'Stros Friday that made him the highest paid pitcher in baseball history.
Clemens is agreeing to a contract that makes him the highest-paid pitcher for the fifth time, following deals with Boston in 1989 ($2.5 million average), with the Red Sox in 1991 ($5.38 million), with Toronto in December 1996 ($8.25 million) and with the Yankees in August 2000 ($15.45 million). The two contracts with Boston and the one with New York made him the sport's highest-paid player overall.Clemens also is getting the highest, one-year contract in baseball history, topping Greg Maddux's $14.75 million deal with Atlanta in 2003.
Barry Bonds, Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens will now be making a combined $52 million dollars next year. Three guys over 40 are going to be making more money combined next year than the entire 2004 team payrolls for the Orioles ($ 51,623,333), Blue Jays ($ 50,017,000), Royals ($ 47,609,000), Tigers ($ 46,832,000), Reds ($ 46,615,250), Marlins ($ 42,143,042), Nationals ($ 41,197,500), Indians ($ 34,319,300), Pirates ($ 32,227,929), Devil Rays ($ 29,556,667), and Brewers ($ 27,528,500).
Does having Roger back suddenly put Houston back in the NL Central hunt?
Everyone seems to make a big deal of how old the Astros are. After all, 4 of their starters are over 35 (Biggio's 39, Bagwell's 36, Vizcaino's 36, and Ausmus is 35), and then there's Clemens, who is 42.
BUT, the Astros, as a team, are actually younger than the Cardinals. In fact, EVERY TEAM in the NL Central is younger than the Cardinals. Hell, EVERY TEAM in Major League Baseball, except for the Yankees, is younger than the Cardinals.
RNK Team Age Young Old 1 Minnesota 26.5 21 33 2 Arizona 26.5 21 37 3 Tampa Bay 26.5 19 36 4 Colorado 26.6 20 33 5 Kansas City 26.7 20 36 6 Milwaukee 26.9 21 35 7 Pittsburgh 27.2 22 39 8 Washington 27.4 22 37 9 Cleveland 27.4 22 35 10 Cincinnati 27.5 21 36 11 Toronto 27.7 21 34 12 Detroit 27.7 22 35 13 Oakland 27.8 21 36 14 Chicago Sox 28.1 22 36 15 Anaheim 28.2 21 39 16 Los Angeles 28.3 20 36 17 Florida 28.3 21 39 18 Baltimore 28.3 23 40 19 Texas 28.4 22 40 20 Seattle 28.6 21 42 21 NY Mets 28.9 21 38 22 Chicago Cubs 29.0 23 38 23 San Diego 29.4 22 38 24 Houston 29.5 23 42 25 Atlanta 29.7 21 46 26 Philadelphia 29.8 21 37 27 San Francisco 30.0 23 40 28 Boston 30.3 21 41 29 St. Louis 30.3 22 38 30 NY Yankees 32.1 25 41
Funny how the oldest teams in baseball are also the best teams in baseball.
Still, maybe a better question is, in light of the successes of Mssrs. Johnson, Clemens, and Bonds, does age really matter?
I mean, Kurt Vonnegut didn't really hit his stride until almost 50, Clint Eastwood didn't win an Oscar until 62, and this woman didn't start modeling until 96. So is it as the old adage goes... it's not how old you are, it's old you feel?
Samuel Beckett once said, "To think, when one is no longer young, when one is not yet old, that one is no longer young, that one is not yet old, that is perhaps something."
I think that about sums it up.
Prospect Watch
Bryan Smith has started his prospect list at All-Baseball.com. Anthony Reyes, almost certainly the Cardinals top prospect, checks in at #71. Smith doesn't look at much beyond the stats for Reyes, which could be pretty dangerous for a pitcher with only one pro season and a reputation for fluctuating velocity. Former Cardinal prospect Daric Barton is listed at #25, with some, er, interesting comments regarding his 2004 season. Barton will be moved to 1B this season, suggesting Beane wasn't bluffing when he said Barton could in the majors in 2006.
The Cardinal Nation has ten things to watch in the minors this season. Not surprisingly, Reyes tops the list. If Reyes pitches well for a month or two in the majors in 2005, then do you think there will be some pressure on Prior to stop working out with him? I like Brandon DeJaynes, but it says something about the farm system that an A-ball reliever who doesn't throw 95 makes this list.
January 20, 2005
La Russa Forever
In the wake of Tony La Russa's contract extension, today's Post-Dispatch sports page features a column by Bernie Miklasz about La Russa's longevity as manager of the Cardinals.
Assuming La Russa completes his three-year deal, he will have managed the Cardinals for 12 consecutive seasons, which would equal Schoendienst's longest uninterrupted streak (1965-1976) at the helm. Since La Russa took over in 1996, the other 29 major league teams have employed a total of 108 managers.
Only Joe Torre and Bobby Cox remain from when Tony took office. Not bad company.
Baseball in the "Noughties"
Iron Throne's piece on Cardinal dynasties got me thinking. While I mentioned that I may not be an objective observer, not having seen any other great era of Cardinal baseball, Tony La Russa's '00-'04 Cardinals were among the best. At worst, I figured that they were one of the best teams in their era, something other great Cardinal dynasties (notably the Whiteyball teams of the '80s) might not have been able to match.
The decade of the 2000's has seen new single-season hitting records for home runs, walks, strikeouts, hits, on-base percentage, slugging percentage -- and, on the other side of the coin, a 20-game loser for the first time in 23 years. Teams have won 116 games and lost 119 games in a season. Wild cards have won more championships than division champions. And that's only the first five years.
So, for starters, how have the Cardinals fared as a team in the '00s?
The Cards have won the second-most games* of any team during the decade.
Yeah, I've gotta have the asterisk in there, because there is a catch. The Cards have won the fourth-most regular season games, at 475, behind the Yankees (of course) at 487, the A's at 483, and the Braves at 481. The Cards' playoff record during that time is not exemplary, at 17-19, but those 17 wins are good enough to pass both the A's and Braves, who are 8-12 and 10-16 respectively; 17-19 also keeps them ahead of the Giants, fifth in regular season wins with 473, who only have managed a 12-13 playoff record (a better winning percentage than the Cards, but thanks to less playoff appearances, not as many total wins). The Yankees, despite only one world title in 2000 (ironically, the worst Yankee team in recent memory), amassed a whopping 37 playoff victories -- 20 more than the next best team (the Red Sox with 18). The final win totals look like this:
New York (A) 524 wins St. Louis 492 Oakland 491 Atlanta 491 San Francisco 485
I'll admit, this is where I cheated. The Cardinals do have a few more losses added in in playoff games -- their 19 are second only to the Yankees' 28 -- so that their winning percentage drops comparatively. That list changed around to winning percentages becomes:
New York (A) 524-347 (.602) Oakland 491-338 (.592) Atlanta 491-343 (.588) San Francisco 485-348 (.5822) St. Louis 492-354 (.5816)
Oops. All the way down to fifth. Well, we're still a great team -- and the Yankees are a juggernaut. It's amazing though, that in five years, the five winningest teams combined only have won one championship. (More on that later.) But for now, here's the whole table I used, from top to bottom, sorted by total wins:
Team 00RW 01RW 02RW 03RW 04RW 00PW 01PW 02PW 03PW 04PW 00RL 01RL 02RL 03RL 04RL 00PL 01PL 02PL 03PL 04PL TRW TRL TPW TPL OW OL RWP PWP OWP NY-A 87 95 103 101 101 11 10 1 9 6 74 65 58 61 61 5 7 3 8 5 487 319 37 28 524 347 .604 .569 .602 StL 95 93 97 85 105 4 2 4 7 67 69 65 77 57 4 3 4 8 475 335 17 19 492 354 .586 .472 .5816 Oak 91 102 103 96 91 2 2 2 2 70 60 59 66 71 3 3 3 3 483 326 8 12 491 338 .597 .400 .592 Atl 95 88 101 101 96 0 4 2 2 2 67 74 59 61 66 3 4 3 3 3 481 327 10 16 491 343 .595 .385 .589 SF 97 90 95 100 91 1 10 1 65 72 66 61 71 3 7 3 473 335 12 13 485 348 .585 .480 .5822 Bos 85 82 93 95 98 7 11 77 79 69 67 64 7 4 453 356 18 11 471 366 .560 .621 .562 Sea 91 116 93 93 63 5 4 71 46 69 69 99 4 6 456 354 9 7 465 361 .563 .474 .561 LA 86 86 92 85 93 1 76 76 70 77 69 3 442 368 1 3 443 371 .546 .250 .544 Min 69 85 94 90 92 4 1 1 93 77 67 72 70 6 3 3 430 379 6 12 436 391 .532 .333 .527 Ana 82 75 99 77 92 11 1 80 87 63 85 70 5 3 425 385 12 8 436 393 .525 .600 .527 Hou 72 93 84 87 92 0 6 90 69 78 75 70 3 6 428 382 6 9 434 391 .528 .400 .526 Chi-A 95 83 81 86 83 0 67 79 81 76 79 3 428 382 0 3 428 385 .528 .000 .526 Ari 85 92 98 84 51 11 0 77 70 64 78 111 6 3 410 400 11 9 421 409 .506 .550 .507 Fla 79 76 79 91 83 11 82 86 83 71 79 6 408 401 11 6 419 407 .504 .647 .507 Cle 90 91 74 68 80 2 72 71 88 94 82 3 403 407 2 3 405 410 .498 .400 .497 Phi 65 86 80 86 86 97 76 81 76 76 403 406 0 0 403 406 .498 n/a .498 Chi-N 65 88 67 88 89 6 97 74 95 74 73 6 397 413 6 6 403 419 .490 .500 .490 NY-N 94 82 75 66 71 8 68 80 86 95 91 6 388 420 8 6 396 426 .480 .571 .482 Tor 83 80 78 86 67 79 82 84 76 94 394 415 0 0 394 415 .487 n/a .487 Tex 71 73 72 71 89 91 89 90 91 73 376 434 0 0 376 434 .464 n/a .464 Cin 85 66 78 69 76 77 96 84 93 86 374 436 0 0 374 436 .462 n/a .462 SD 76 79 66 64 87 86 83 96 98 75 372 438 0 0 372 438 .459 n/a .459 Col 82 73 73 74 68 80 89 89 88 94 370 440 0 0 370 440 .457 n/a .457 Mon 67 68 83 83 67 95 94 79 79 95 368 442 0 0 368 442 .454 n/a .454 Bal 74 63 67 71 78 88 98 95 91 84 353 456 0 0 353 456 .436 n/a .436 Pit 69 62 72 75 72 93 100 89 87 89 350 458 0 0 350 458 .433 n/a .433 KC 77 65 62 83 58 85 97 100 79 104 345 465 0 0 345 465 .426 n/a .426 Mil 73 68 56 68 67 89 94 106 94 94 332 477 0 0 332 477 .410 n/a .410 TB 69 62 55 63 70 92 100 106 99 91 319 488 0 0 319 488 .395 n/a .395 Det 79 66 55 43 72 83 96 106 119 90 315 494 0 0 315 494 .389 n/a .389
Key for postseason areas:
bold = division champion
italics = won division series
underline = won pennant (11 wins = won World Series)
It's more than obvious to anyone, without even looking at the table, that the Devil Rays and Tigers would constitute the bottom. The Tigers managed dead last despite an almost-.500 season in 2000. However, to me, there were a couple of surprises. First, the Padres were worse than the Reds? Hard to believe, given the state of baseball in Cincinnati in recent seasons, but it's true. And second, the Marlins and Diamondbacks weren't nearly as bad as I expected them to be. Sure, their Series wins inflated their totals a little bit, but it didn't affect their overall standing.
Other notes...
Best team not to make the postseason: Phillies. Larry Bowa should be proud. (Honorable mention: the White Sox, who've posted a .528 winning percentage during the regular season, and haven't won a playoff game.)
Worst team to make the postseason: Mets. Did the Cards really lose to them in 2000? I suppose it's a little bit of karma that they've fallen off the map. (Honorable mention: the Cubs, who snuck in with 88 wins in 2003 despite two 95 (or more)-loss seasons.
As far as each of the divisions go, here are their totals:
Regular Season AL West 1740-1499 (.537) NL West 2067-1981 (.511) NL East 2048-1996 (.506) AL East 2006-2034 (.497) NL Central 2356-2501 (.485) AL Central 1921-2127 (.475)
Postseason AL East 55-39 (.585) - 2 WS, 4 AL NL East 29-28 (.509) - 1 WS, 2 NL AL West 29-30 (.492) - 1 WS, 1 AL NL West 24-25 (.490) - 1 WS, 2 NL NL Central 29-34 (.460) - 1 NL AL Central 8-18 (.308)
Yikes. The AL Central is bad. I was a little surprised to see the AL East do so poorly in regular season play, but the aformentioned Devil Rays as well as the Orioles and Blue Jays... well, let's just say they've racked up a lot of losses.
I'm going to change gears a little bit at this point, and talk about postseason play exclusively. Wild card teams have won each of the past three World Series titles, and baseball purists are arguing that it's an indictment of the playoff format; too many teams get in, and while that's exciting for the fans, all it takes is a team to get hot at the right time to win it all. To illustrate, here's a list of the best teams' regular-season win totals in each season since the beginning of the three-division & wild card format, all the way down to the World Series winner, indicated in bold:
1995: 100, 90 (144 games)
1996: 99, 96, 92
1997: 101, 98, 96, 92
1998: 114
1999: 103, 100, 98
2000: 97, 95, 95, 95, 94, 91, 91, 90, 87
2001: 116, 102, 95, 93, 93, 92
2002: 103, 103, 101, 99
2003: 101, 101, 100, 96, 95, 93, 91
2004: 105, 101, 98
I included back to the advent of the wild card in 1994, to show the difference between the format's first five years and its second five years. The wild cards (underlined when they're champions) have won the Series four out of the ten seasons, but as I mentioned, each of the last three years. The best regular-season team has won the Series only once, and the second-best team has never won. How does that compare to the two-division format, where only four teams were in the playoffs?
9th: 1987 (85)
6th: 1980 (91), 1985 (91)
4th: 1973 (94), 1974 (90), 1982 (92), 1990 (91), 1993 (95)
3rd: 1971 (97), 1972 (93), 1977 (100), 1988 (94)
2nd: 1969 (100), 1979 (98), 1983 (98), 1991 (95), 1992 (96)
1st: 1970 (108), 1975 (108), 1976 (102), 1978 (100), 1984 (104), 1986 (108), 1989 (99)
For the record, I excluded 1981, when the 4th-best team won, because that season was just screwed up. The best team in the league did not make the playoffs (neither did the NL East champion Cardinals), even though eight other teams did, due to the strike-induced split season format.
So, during the two-division era, exactly half the time -- twelve of twenty-four seasons -- the World Series champion was a team that was either the best team in the league during the regular season or second-best. Compare that with the once out of ten seasons in the three-division, wild card format. Or, if you prefer plain win totals, only nine of twenty-four seasons in the two-division era did the champion have less than 95 wins; with three divisions, it's happened six times in ten seasons. The median champion win total for the two-division era is 96.5; with three divisions, it's 92.0. (For the record, between 1903 and 1968, the median was 98.0 -- and most of those seasons consisted of 154 games.) Obviously, the quality of the World Series champion teams in an era have gone down every time baseball has allowed more teams into the postseason. However, whether it's good for the game or not, the wild card is here to stay, just like every other record that has been broken in this decade without a name.
Of Halos and Lawsuits
It seems that the Angels' name change (the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim", in case you forgot) has attracted some interesting opposition: the City of Los Angeles. So, if they don't want to be the Anaheim Angels, but LA doesn't want them as the LA Angels, then what's left? Back to the days of Donnie Moore? Or will they adopt a more contemporary name?
Cardinal Dynasties
We’ve already touched on this, but who were the best Cardinals in history? One of the oldest and most storied franchises in baseball, the Cardinals have had more than their share of success. From the Gashouse Gang of the thirties to this year’s pennant winning team, the Birds on the Bat have enthralled their fans (we’ll leave out anything from before about 1926, since the Cardinals may have been a major league team, but rarely played like it). But how do you measure greatness? By pennants and rings? With our eyes? How about by Hall of Famers? We’re all supposed to be statheads here to some degree or another, so there must be a statistical method that can give us some pointers.
Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein in their book, Baseball Dynasties developed a system for ranking the best baseball dynasties of all time. They did this by taking the number of standard deviations above or below the mean a team was in runs scored and runs allowed, and added them together to get a “Standard Deviation Score (SD)” for that team. They then ranked team dynasties; that is they gave two year, three year, four year, and five year SD scores to teams to rank them in an all time list. This method has the advantage of comparing a team to its league. With differences over history in rules, the players allowed to play, training regimens, and the size of the league, direct comparisons between two eras can’t be made. This method puts no weight on pennants or rings won, simply because in 1934 there were sixteen teams, and in 2004 there are thirty. All things being equal, it’s about twice as hard to win a pennant or the World Series now than it was then.
With all that said, we can get down to brass tacks. As I said previously, the Cardinals have won in discreet bunches. There are very few teams that have had only one good year. In fact, the only good Cardinals team that was distinct from any other was the 88 win 1996 team under Tony LaRussa. Starting from the beginning, the Cardinals as a team weren’t good at the start of modern baseball. Their first winning teams were the late twenties-mid thirties teams that culminated in the Gashouse Gang of ’34 and ’35. And starting in 1942, the Cardinals had one of the best decades in baseball history, winning during the war period, and just dominating afterwards. This was followed a generation later by the Bob Gibson/Lou Brock Cardinals of the sixties, the team a lot of our fathers grew up with. In the eighties came the team whose shadow still looms long over the landscape: the Running Redbirds. With three world series teams and one ring, they set the bar for the current Cards to exceed. And we all know the Cardinals of today; everyone reading this probably has a Pujols T-shirt, or sleeps under their Jason Isringhausen bed sheets and wears their Jim Edmonds Baseball Pants—Now with GrassStainzTM!
I posted a poll earlier this week to see what teams our loyal readers considered the best Cards teams of all time. The results came back rather surprising; I was expecting the Running Redbirds to do very well, at least not come in last. I’m not surprised that the current model Cardinals didn’t do well; it’s always hard to appreciate what you have in front of you. With the Musial and Gibson teams running neck and neck, we ask, what do the numbers say?
Well, they say that you never can trust your childhood memories. Below is a chart showing just how dominant the 40’s Cards were. These are the SD scores for the teams. The SD scores are made from the number of standard deviations above the mean a team is in its runs scored plus the number of standard deviations below the mean in runs allowed. One standard deviation above the mean in runs scored means that a team would score more than 68% of the teams, and two standard deviations means that they would score more runs than 95% of the teams. It breaks down that a team with an SD score over 3 is an all-time great team, over two is a very good team, and about 1.8 or so is usually the best team in the league.
year hitting pitching SD score 1949 0.714 1.634 2.348 1948 0.748 0.815 1.562 1947 0.824 1.191 2.015 1946 1.527 1.209 2.736 1945 0.734 1.144 1.878 1944 1.401 1.652 3.053 1943 0.888 1.544 2.432 1942 0.891 0.931 1.822
These Cardinals were just phenomenal: three good teams, three very good teams, and a 1944 team that was one of the best ever. And before anyone makes the argument that they should be discounted because of the war, I’d like to see the line in the draft law where Cards were exempt. And besides, when the players came back in 1946, the Cards were better. Now compare this to the Gibson teams:
year hitting pitching SD score 1968 0.387 1.447 1.835 1967 1.124 1.059 2.184 1966 -1.349 0.996 -0.353 1965 0.614 -0.263 0.351 1964 0.806 -0.004 0.802 1963 1.480 -0.168 1.312
One very good team in ’67, one good team in ’68, two average teams in the middle, and two teams that were lucky to win their leagues. There really isn’t much of a contest here, the 40’s teams were better longer, at their peak, and in nearly every year, before and after the end of the War. This doesn’t make the 60’s teams bad, it’s just that Musial's Cards were just that good.
The Running Redbirds polled very poorly, and this is most likely due to that fact that they had three good years with three poor years in between.
year hitting pitching SD score 1987 1.165 0.773 1.937 1986 -1.418 1.012 -0.406 1985 1.686 1.366 3.052 1984 -0.116 0.233 0.117 1983 0.314 -1.285 -0.971 1982 0.404 1.353 1.758
What shouldn’t be overlooked is that the ’85 team was extremely good, one of the all time great teams by this metric. They could hit, they could run, all of it. But the down years really cost them as a dynasty; you have to be good continually if you want to take the crown as Best Cardinals Dynasty.
The biggest disservice, though, is done to the current team. They have only one pennant to their credit, two heart breaking LCS losses, and 2001, where they lost to an inferior team that just happened to have their value packed into the top of their rotation. It’s either this lack of shiny rings or a grass-is-always-greener mindset that keeps us from seeing the real team:
year hitting pitching SD score 2004 1.322 1.130 2.452 2003 1.552 -0.555 0.998 2002 1.299 0.903 2.202 2001 0.749 1.091 1.841 2000 0.993 0.601 1.594
Of course this last year, the team was very good, but not at the level of all time great like the ’85 or ’43 teams. The 2002 team that lost to the Giants was also a very good team, and the two that came before it were serviceable as well. Only the disappointing 2003 team hurts the current dynasty, even though it had the best hitting of the five, and in fact only behind the ’85 team in scoring runs for all of the teams under discussion; but substandard pitching keeps them from being an all time great team.
And finally, there were the early century teams, spread over ten years:
year hitting pitching SD score 1935 1.207 1.031 2.238 1934 1.481 0.738 2.220 1933 1.254 0.056 1.310 1932 -0.348 -0.148 -0.497 1931 1.244 1.156 2.400 1930 1.023 0.710 1.734 1929 0.045 0.212 0.257 1928 1.102 0.721 1.823 1927 1.238 0.549 1.787 1926 1.099 0.286 1.385
These teams were good for the longest consecutive period of time, but had two years in which they were average to poor. I place them behind the 40’s teams, and ahead of the shorter and more erratic 60’s and 80’s teams. The question remains how they stack up to our modern team. Their run was twice as long as the current team has to this point, and even though they didn’t have to contend with free agency, longevity is important. The modern team’s best was better than the 1931 team, though the second tier ’34-35 teams were better than the 2002 team. Over the five years of the modern team, they have a cumulative 9.087 SD score, compared with five year sums of 8.001 for the ’26 to ’30 teams and 7.671 for the ’31 to ’35 teams (the two highest 5 year scores). It’s a bit of a toss up between these two teams, with the current Cards being better at their peak, and the earlier teams good over a longer period of time. The current team, however, has a chance to improve on its record while the ’36 Cards slipped in the rankings and weren’t seen again until 1942.
I’ll admit that the original purpose of this article was to prove that the modern teams were every bit as good as those that came before, but I have a new appreciation for the history of the team. I hadn’t realized just how good the teams were in the forties, or how spoiled the citizens of Saint Louis must have been from 1926 to 1949. I didn’t have an understanding just how good that 1985 team that I barely remember was, or how good the ’67-’68 teams were. I just hope we can all realize how lucky we are to have this franchise, and that the current team stacks up very well in the context of history.
Pujols Makes Me Look Pathetic
Albert Pujols continued to make the average man look absolutely pathetic tonight by winning his fourth St. Louis Baseball Man of the Year award in four years.
Two other (ex)Cardinals honored at the event, Mike Matheny and Woody Williams, picked up the J. Roy Stockton/Bob Broeg Award for outstanding achievement in baseball and the Darryl Kile Award (recognizing the traits "of a good teammate, a great friend, a fine father and a humble man"), respectively.
Also featured, the 1985 Cardinals, one of only two other Cardinal teams since WWII to win more than 100 games. Former manager Whitey Herzog tossed a bouquet of flowers to Tony La Russa before speaking:
"Sometimes when you lose the last game you play, especially when you're in the World Series, people tend to think less of what you accomplished," said Herzog. "For the 2004 team to win 105 games is one hell of a feat. ... I guarantee you if that damn first game in Boston had gone the other way, that would have been a hell of a World Series."
Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
The only thing I've managed to do consistently over the past four years is pay my taxes on time (well, most of 'em anyway) and not kill anyone.
American Idol, er, MLB Comes to Town
Beginning this weekend, Major League Baseball will be seeking out fans for their "I Live This" advertising campaign. Ryan Seacrest and Bud Selig will be traveling across this great nation of ours to find the country's most die-hard baseball fans.
| The new spots will feature fans from six teams that participated in the 2004 postseason, including the Red Sox, Cardinals, Astros, Yankees, Angels and Dodgers. The representative fans from each team will be selected from open casting calls scheduled in each market between January 22 and February 2. |
An open casting call where Cards fans can strut their stuff will take place Tuesday, Jan. 25 from 12 - 8 p.m. at Busch Stadium. Visit the Cardinals website for more info.
Make sure to wear your Kurt Kepshire jersey.
PHOTO: Osbourne Smith, Jr. struts his stuff. Ozzie, welcome to Hollywood.
[Photo Courtesy of FOX Broadcasting, Freemantle Media, 19 Entertainment.]
January 19, 2005
Jocketty dodges the bullet again....
According to the Post-Dispatch this morning (and the Birdhouse yesterday) the Cards signed southpaw Rick Ankiel to a 1-year deal worth $400,000 (before incentives). Thus, Walt once again avoids the need to go to arbitration, as Ankiel was the last of the arbitration-eligible players to come to terms with the team.
According to the Birdhouse, Ankiel's incentives include an additional $75,000 based on appearances, $50,000 if Rick is selected to the National League All Star Team, and $50,000 if he is selected as Comeback Player of the Year.
Welcome back, and good luck, Rick. All of Cardinal Nation will be pulling for you!
January 18, 2005
The Small Bears On The Run
Despite TBW's reporting that Albert has an ouchie, Cubs fans are already worried that this may mean he will be raining hellfire, or maybe the Wrath of Khan even, down upon them sometime soon.
Big Al played through the injury last year, and his season wasn’t exactly a bust. I expect more of the same from him this year, which as a Cubs fan just means more pain.
Sometimes it's nice to have more than the David Schwimmer to root for...
Cardinal Dynasties
What were the Cardinals teams in history? I'm putting together a piece on the best Cardinals teams using Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein's methods from their book Baseball Dynasties. Before I post it, I'd like to hear from everybody on what they think were the best Cardinals teams in history, both in peak/one year value, and as a dynasty, i.e. over several connected years.
The Cardinals as a franchise have won in fairly discreet bunches. In fact, the only Cardinals team that came in first disconnected from other winning teams was the 1996 team, which is more a testament to the three division system than to a great team. But I'd like to hear from everyone on who they think the best teams are: the Information Age Cardinals (2000-2004) lead by Albert Pujols and Matt Morris, the Running Redbirds (1982, '85, and '87) of Whitey Herzog and Ozzie Smith, the Silver Age Cardinals (1963, '64, '67, and '68) of Bob Gibson and Lou Brock, the Golden Age Cardinals (1942-1949) of Stan Musial and Mort Cooper, or the Lively Ball Cardinals (1926, '28, '31, '34, '35) of Jim Bottomley and the Dean brothers.
January 17, 2005
Achilles', er, Albert's Heel
Despite offseason OssaTron treatment, King Albert's heel is still on the fritz.
"It's still bothering me," Pujols said before taking the stage to sign autographs at the team's annual Winter Warm-Up fan festival. "I think I'm gonna do another treatment, hopefully, before I go down to Spring Training. It felt good for awhile, and then the last week or so it's been bothering me a little bit. It's something that I'm pretty sure I'm gonna go through again this year, because it's too late to do surgery."
Pujols has averaged 156 games over the past two seasons all while posting record-breaking numbers, despite a sprained right elbow in 2003 and heel problems in 2004, so this heel problem shouldn't be anything for us to be too concerned about... right?
"I'm not gonna go through the same thing that I went through last year. I don't think my body can handle that back-to-back years.
Crap. I already had to sit through 2 hours and 43 minutes of Wolfgang Peterson's painful recreation of the Homeric epic, now I have to worry about sitting through 162 games of this?
Dog help us.
From Redbird Nation to Red States
Looks like Bill DeWitt and W are chummier than I thought...
Let's say you need $40 million by next month. Whom do you call?For President Bush, that answer is Indian Hill's Mercer Reynolds and Bill DeWitt, who are two of the three co-chairmen of the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
Does this mean we're getting another Presidential first pitch this spring? If it means heading back to the Series, then I'm hardly one to complain, but Bill, don't you think it would have been easier to call on Redbird Nation to raise $40 million to resign Edgar Renteria?