birds dropping?

Joe Sheehan, a Baseball Prospectus author who still doesn't think last year's Cardinals were for real, is at it again:

I was asked last week to name a team I think is on the rise and one I think is ready for a fall. It's a standard spring topic, but one that this year is interesting because of the sheer number of teams who seem to be jumping into each category. I think the Blue Jays, Orioles, Mets and Reds are all in for big jumps from their 2004 performances, while the Yankees, Braves, Cardinals and Giants all look to me to be aging and unlikely to continue their recent success.

One of these years---say, in 2013, when Albert has an extended DL stint---the Cardinals will finish below .500 and Sheehan will say "HA! I told you so!"

Throughout 2004, when the Cardinals were on pace early to win over 100 games, there was Joe Sheehan over at Baseball Prospectus (sorry, no links---subscription site) reminding everyone that it's a long season and the Birds would come fluttering back to earth.

I suppose he got his vindication when they ran into destiny's darlings in the World Series, but still, this is a team that led the league both in runs scored, with 855, and in fewest runs allowed, with 659. I mean, they had to be doing something right...

And now, because of all their old players, once again Sheehan looks at the Cardinals' roster and sees a team unlikely to be good (or at least, "unlikely to continue their recent sucess"). Now, by "recent success," if he means "105 wins," well that's a no-brainer. But if he means that the Cardinals are a good candidate to drop below 90 wins, well, that's just crazy talk.

Of 14 position players likely to make the roster, I count 10--including 6 of 8 starters---that will be 30 or older on opening day.

The pitchers aren't as long in the tooth, as the oldest starters are 30 (Matt Morris turns 31 in August) and Mulder (27), Marquis (26), and Ankiel (25) are still relatively youthful. Cal Eldred is the lone pen graybeard at 37, while Jason Isringhausen, Ray King and Julian Tavarez are all 31 or 32.

So who are these old players upon whom the Cardinals success lies? Let's examine these dinosaurs and see how they might reasonably be expected to fare in 2005. (As we all know, players get injured, and older players may get injured more frequently, but I'm not going to say "Player X is due for an injury this year, now that he's 35"—unless there's a reason to think that may be the case.). Players listed in age order:

Larry Walker, 38
Contribution to '04 success: Limited, in that he joined team in August and only played in 27% of team's games.
Prognosis for '05: Even if the injury-prone Walker misses 2/3 of the season with injuries, he'll play in more than last year's total of 44 games, meaning his contribution should exceed last year's. His 1.013 OPS after joining the Cardinals (6 NL players had higher OPS for the season) last year proves that he's still a force.
Good chance for improvement.

Reggie Sanders, 37
Contribution to '04 success: Moderate. He started 112 games in the outfield, and ranked 9th among NL RFers in Value Over Replacement Player, continuing his decade-long odd/even production cycle in which his OPS in even years is about 150 points lower than in odd years.
Prognosis for '05: If he keeps his remarkable pattern intact, Sanders would perform along the lines of his 2003 season (.285/.345/.567), which would be fantastic. But he is now 37, and as we all know, 37-year-olds are in decline. So let's assume that any age-related decline in Sanders---who is still in great shape---is offset by his odd-year performance boost, and it's a wash.
Expect more of the same, as other than age, no evidence to suggest fall-off.

So Taguchi, turns 36 in July
Contribution to '04 success: Minimal. Did get 36 starts, or about one-fifth of a season's worth, in the outfield. He's a fifth outfielder.
Prognosis for '05: Can't see a huge swing one way or the other, and it won't matter too much regardless.
Expect more of the same.

Jim Edmonds, turns 35 at end of June
Contribution to '04 success: Huge. Set career high in OPS while playing Gold Glove defense and making over 140 starts.
Prognosis for '05: People like Sheehan and Will Carroll have been predicting a prolonged DL visit for Edmonds for years now, yet, despite the occasional aches and pains, he's averaged 147 games a year as a Cardinal and has missed more than 18 games once. Though he is 34 now, almost 35, one needs to expect a decline someday, but Edmonds has only seemed to get better with age.
Expect more of the same.

Mark Grudzielanek, turns 35 at end of June
Position's contribution to '04 success: Moderate. Grudz replaces Tony Womack, whose career year in 2004 represented no more than an average year among NL 2B.
Prognosis for '05: Injuries limited Grudz to a half-season in 2004, so this recent history may be of concern. In two seasons with the Cubs, he was around a .780 OPS, which exceeds the 2004 production of both Womack (.734) and the departed Edgar Renteria (.728). But, those two seasons followed three sub-par years for the Dodgers.
The 2B position shouldn't expect a huge swing one way or the other.

John Mabry, 34
contribution to '04 success: Fair. Bench player made 62 starts at four positions, and had outstanding .296/.363/.506 line, his 2nd .800+ OPS season in 3 years after a career of never sniffing it.
Prognosis for '05: A guy like Mabry---old, slow, and without a recent history of sustained excellence---seems like a prime candidate for a decline.
Expect a decline.

Einar Diaz, 32
Position's contribution to '04 success: Fair. As the back-up catcher, Diaz replaces Yadier Molina, who is the new starter for 2005. Molina started nearly a quarter of the team's games and out-hit Matheny, providing great value off the bench.
Prognosis for '05: While Molina is better offensively than last year's starter, the same cannot be said for Diaz, who is a miserable hitter, providing almost nothing with the bat: he's had an OPS below .600 in 2 of the past 3 seasons.
Expect a decline from the back-up catcher postion.

Roger Cedeno, 30 (31 in August)
Contribution to '04 success: Minimal. Performance may have exceeded expectations, but when all is said and done he's a fourth outfielder who had a .702 OPS after a .698 OPS in 2003 with the Mets.
Prognosis for '05: He's still just 30, and though it's not like he's been a world-beater the last several years, there's no reason to expect him to fall off a cliff.
Expect more of the same.

David Eckstein, 30
Position's contribution to '04 success: Moderate. Replaces Gold Glover and All Star Edgar Renteria, who fell off quite a bit from huge 2003. Doesn't walk much, has no power, and while steady afield, there are concerns about range and arm strength.
Prognosis for '05: Has had an OPS between .650–.712 in 3 of 4 ML seasons, and the average of that range represents a fair drop-off from Renteria's production. Plus, he looks like he's throwing his shoulder out with every throw, which may suggest an injury waiting to happen.
Expect a decline at shortstop.

Scott Rolen, 30
contribution to '04 success: Huge. Career year with .314/.409/.598 line. Achy knee, then strained calf, affected him down the stretch and in the postseason.
Prognosis for '05: Rolen's knee is a concern that could land him on the DL for an extended period. If healthy, he should be among the best in the league at his position, but 2004 may have been a peak that will be hard to duplicate.
Expect a decline, but still a player among best at his position.

Addressing Sheehan's point about a "fall," one must look at where production is likely to drop off from its 2004 levels, and I just don't see that many scary areas. Sure, of the 10 players 30 or older listed above I see a chance for decline in four of them, but two are those four are bench players, another is coming off a career year (Rolen), and the fourth is David Eckstein, who, while admittedly a downgrade from Renteria, is filling a hole that had a .728 OPS last year---hardly giant shoes. Walker's and Sanders's age, and Walker's history may be cause for some concern, but the corner outfield spots were two of the weaker spots in the lineup in 2004.

If Rolen plays 140+ games, the Cardinals will be considerably better than league average at 3B, and by the same token, they can expect continued best-in-league performance from two positions (1b-Pujols, and CF-Edmonds)---which no other team in the league can say---and decent, league-average-or-better production from 3 or 4 other positions (c-Molina, 2b-Grudz, lf-Sanders, rf-Walker).

So it seems as if Sheehan's assessment must come down to assuming injuries for 2005, and after the Cardinals' extremely lucky 2004 in that department, they may as due as any team. Still, that seems a strange reasoning—they'll probably get hurt—to count the Cardinals out for 2005.

Mike on Mac

I was reading an article on the Post's website about some comments Mark Prior made about his former USC teammate, Anthony Reyes, when I came across some comments from Mike Matheny about Mark McGwire.

Over the years I've heard tales of local St. Louisans having personal encounters with various players, outside the stadium. Some have been good, and some have been bad, but the most impressive story I ever heard was about Mike Matheny, and that combined with the overwhelmingly positive comments people involved in the game (teammates, coaches, writers, etc.) have had about him, I think of him as a really upstanding, trustworthy person. So naturally, I was very interested to see what he had to say on this subject. He starts out with this:

"I hate that. It's tough to watch," Matheny said. "I'm a big fan of Mark's. I know how hard he worked to achieve what he accomplished and now only one person is trying to destroy all of it. With what Canseco says, it casts all players in a bad light. My home runs shouldn't be in question, but now, all of us are being looked at as to whether or not what we did is, and that's not right."

Sounds pretty good so far. I hope he was joking about anybody questioning his home runs, but he still makes a good point. Because of a bad apple or two (or 20, we'll probably never know), many others face unwarranted scrutiny. However, the most interesting of his comments to me was this:

Asked whether he thought McGwire ever took steroids in his career, Matheny, his teammate in 2000-2001 with the Cardinals, said, "That's none of my business. All I can say is I know how hard Mark worked. I was privileged to be his teammate."

Now, I know he could just be respecting his former teammate's privacy - McGwire barely came out of seclusion even to deny Canseco's claims, so he's obviously a man who appreciates his privacy. But why wouldn't Matheny jump at this opportunity to officially put his legendary reputation behind Big Mac? The first thing that comes to my mind is that he doesn't want to jeopardize his stature by saying something that may or may not be accurate. This could be interpreted a number of ways. It could mean that Matheny doesn't know, one way or the other, whether Mark used steroids or not, which is probably true, considering they were only teammates for 2 years. Or it could mean that he has his own suspicions, but doesn't dare make any claims without solid evidence. It could even mean that he is fully aware of steroid use in McGwire's past, and saying that it's none of his business and pointing out that Mark worked hard is an easy way to offer support without being untruthful. After all, it is none of his business, right?

Actually, doesn't every player deserve to know? I think Matheny made that very case when he pointed out that this issue "casts all players in a bad light". If there are players out there that have information about which players have used steroids in the past, wouldn't it be in their best interest to bring it to light? Unfortunately, that would likely do nothing more than start a giant finger-pointing session that would ruin even more reputations than have already been called into question. So where do we go from here? What is the best course of action for players and fans amidst this controversy? I think the best thing that can be done is that which already has been done - put a tougher steroid policy in place. It could be better, but at least it has mandatory punishments and publicly available results. Beyond that, there's not much we can do. We can't go back in time and test certain players who we may suspect of steroid use. We can't strike certain lines from the record books based on suspicions and speculation. All we can do is make sure nothing like this happens again, so that we never have to question players’ statistics and reputations like this again.

Izzy Re-ups

According to the front page of the official Cards homepage, Isringhausen and the team have agreed to a new contract extension. Before this, he was signed through this season ($9.25mil) with an option for '06 ($8mil vs. a $1.1mil buyout). Now he's locked in until '07, with an option for '08. The latest news on the Cardinals site doesn't specify contract terms, but an earlier article about an imminent contract quotes $7mil for '05, $8.75mil for '06 and '07, and $8mil for the '08 option, with a $1.25mil buyout. If these figures are correct, this appears to be a great deal for the Cardinals. Let's compare Izzy's numbers over the last few years to some other closers.

Now, when you think of elite closers, the first two that come to mind these days are Mariano Rivera and Eric Gagne.

Gagne  ($8mil in '05, $10mil in '06)
YEAR  G   SV  IP    H   BB   SO   ERA  H/9   BR/9  SO/9  BB/9  SO/BB
2002  77  52  82.1  55  16  114  1.97  6.01  7.98 12.46  1.75  7.13 
2003  77  55  82.1  37  20  137  1.20  4.04  6.56 14.98  2.19  6.85 
2004  70  45  82.1  53  22  114  2.19  5.79  8.74 12.46  2.40  5.18 

Rivera  ($10.5mil in '05 & '06, $10.5mil option for '07)
YEAR  G   SV  IP    H   BB   SO   ERA  H/9   BR/9  SO/9  BB/9  SO/BB
2002  45  28  46    35  11   41  2.74  6.85  9.39  8.02  2.15  3.73 
2003  64  40  70.2  61  10   63  1.66  7.77  9.55  8.02  1.27  6.30 
2004  74  53  78.2  65  20   66  1.94  7.44 10.30  7.55  2.29  3.30 

Isringhausen ($7mil in '05, $8.75 in '06 & '07)
YEAR  G   SV  IP    H   BB   SO   ERA  H/9   BR/9  SO/9  BB/9  SO/BB
2002  60  32  65.1  46  18   68  2.48  6.34  8.95  9.37  2.48  3.78 
2003  40  22  42    31  18   41  2.36  6.64 10.50  8.79  3.86  2.28 
2004  74  47  75.1  55  23   71  2.87  6.57  9.56  8.48  2.75  3.09 

The first thing I notice when I look at these numbers is just how amazing Eric Gagne is. I think in a few more years as he nears free agency, he will easily become the highest paid closer out there. Second, you can see that many of Isringhausen's numbers compare favorably to Rivera over the last few years. He gives up a few more walks, but his K/BB rate is still solid. I also notice that Jason has been surprisingly consistent in terms of his rate stats since coming to the Cards in '02. Many will claim that his velocity has diminished, and that injuries have been a problem, but when it comes down to it, he's a solid bargain in today's market.

The other beauty of this deal is that it gives Walt (ok, us fans) one less thing to worry about the next few years. Plus, this year alone, the deal cuts $2.25mil out of the budget, and only ups what he would've likely already made next year by $750k. Looks like just as Edgar was chasing the dollar signs, Isringhausen was figuring how how much of a hometown discount to give. Sometimes, when you get into statistics, you find yourself amazed at how much of your opinion about a player is based on things that have nothing to do with stats.

Closer Songs

Throws like a girl asks what song you would use if you were brought in as a closer.

I love these things, so much fertile ground here:

My first choice would be "Wu Tang Clan Ain't Nuthing to F' Wit".

Can't slip that one by the censors then "Slam" by Onyx.

If I had to pick something done this century I'd say "Cats, Vans, Bags" by Atmosphere.

Your turn...

Linups Again

Curveblog went to the source and convinced James Click to simulate various Cardinal lineups.

I'll make you go over there to read it, but it's very interesting.

Pitcher Health

Will Carroll has his team team health report up for the Cardinals. I suppose the only real news is that Eckstein is listed as "red", whatever that means. Carroll being Carroll, there are a couple of things I feel compelled to address.

First:

It's a bit more shallow in the pitching end of the pool, where the team is starting the season with Morris on the DL and, beyond Ankiel, there's nothing even remotely ready. Go ahead, tell me who the next starter would be if someone went down in spring training.

Probably Anthony Reyes, maybe Adam Wainwright or Chris Gissell. Carroll doesn't mention Reyes or Gissell, which probably tells me all I need to know, but I'm sure he's not the only one stuck on the idea that the Cardinals don't have any pitching depth. Gissell won't get any Cy Young votes, but somehow he managed a sub-4 ERA in 200 innings at Colorado Springs (elevation 6000+ feet) over the previous two seasons.

Reyes is the real one to watch however. Consider this comparison between Reyes's time at AA in 2004 and the record some other pitcher, let's call him Mark Cosbi, had at AA a couple of years ago:

Name  IP  ERA   K/9    BB/9    H/9
Cosbi 35  2.60  14.3   2.6     6.9
Reyes 74  2.91  12.4   1.6     7.5

Sample size caveats and all that, but they're reasonably similar. Cosbi, of course, is actually Mark Prior in 2002, who after three starts at AAA then had a stellar half-season with the big club (3.32 ERA) in 2002 and was the best starter in the National League in 2003. Reyes didn't pitch especially well at Palm Beach before his AA stint, but (a) 2004 was his first season in pro ball and more importantly (b) he had some physical problems that apparently cleared up, at least temporarily. There's an obvious danger from this kind of comparison (see Brendan Harris), so I'm not claiming that Reyes is the second coming of Mark Prior. In fact, I won't even claim that Reyes is as good as that stat-line suggests, but I'd much rather have Anthony Reyes as my first guy up than Sergio Mitre.

Carroll also said of Jason Marquis:

The year after cracking the 200-inning mark is a big test for pitchers, so watch him early.

I haven't seen any study that backs this up, so I ran a query on the Lahman database. Here's a summary of what I found for what pitchers did in the years after they threw 200 innings:

Time     #      Avg IP  Agg ERA
#       P's       X+1     X+1
1	627	  187    3.81
2	424	  199    3.71
3	330	  198    3.60
4	245	  205    3.62
5	178	  204    3.59
6	128	  199    3.56
7	 95	  202    3.55
8	 66	  223    3.41
9	 55	  194    3.37
10	 34	  211    3.34
11	 27	  195    3.60
12	 20	  196    3.59
13	 13	  196    3.49
14	  9	  205    3.49
15	  7	  212    3.40
16	  6	  165    3.92
17	  3	  206    4.14
18	  2	  218    4.08
19	  2	  173    4.76
20	  1	  192    4.70

The first column breaks down pitcher-seasons by the number of seasons the pitcher has made it to 200 innings. For example, 2003 was the third season Brett Tomko threw 200 innings (gosh, did he really torture us that many innings?), so his 2004 season goes in row 3. 1998 was the first season Tomko threw 200 IP, so his 1999 season goes in row 1. Between 1954 and 2003 there were 627 different pitchers who threw 200 innings in a season. After their first season of 200+ innings they averaged 187 innings with an ERA of 3.81. Compared to years beyond, that's a little low innings-wise and a little bad, but not dramatically so.

The three main reasons why a pitcher wouldn't have thrown 200 innings prior to year X, and why he would throw a lot of 200 inning seasons in general, are (1) he's not talented enough -- call it the Jason Simontacchi Reason -- (2) he's hurt a lot -- call that the Donovan Osborne Reason -- and (3) he's been too young -- call that the Felix Hernandez Reason. Reason #3 obviously doesn't apply to Jason Marquis and, as far as I can tell, neither does Reason #2, since Marquis has had only two trips to the DL since being drafted in 1996, once in the minors (strained abdominal muscle) and once in the majors (elbow tendinitis), neither particularly serious. So really we're back to Reason #1, whether Marquis is that talented. Maybe Carroll has something to back up his statement, but I'm not seeing anything special here.

Oh yeah, my queries unearthed only one pitcher who has thrown twenty 200 IP seasons. My first guess was Cy Young, but he only had 19 of those seasons... and none of them were after 1953 anyway. I'll let people guess who that guy is (and, yes, he threw 192 innings in the year after his last 200 IP season).

Predictions

Spring is in the air which means its time for predictions. Every year every baseball fan, writer, and blogger spends a few thousand words making predictions for the upcoming year. This year I've decided to corrall all the predictions I can find in one place, so at the end of the year we can see how everybody did.

First on deck is our very own Rob used Zips to come up with a prediction of 91-71 for the Redbirds this year.

AOL Sports News predicts a Yankeeds World Series Win. Also that Bonds passes Ruth and more relevantly that the Astros fall to 4th place.

Absolutely Adequate at Fantasy Baseball Cafe sees the Cardinals getting the wildcard losing the division to the Cubs.

My prediction? Cardinals walk to the division title as the NL central reverts to the mid 90's jokey days. The Astros plummet, the Cubs don't have enough offense to mount a threat. The Cardinals win ~92 games mixing brilliant stretches with miserable ones. We head to the playoffs with no idea which team will show up.

The Brewers, Reds, and Pirates are joined by the Astros in the bottom of the division with the Cubs holding onto #2 and meandering towards the wildcard but never quit make it.

If you have predictions on the 2005 season, either a link, or a personal prediction email me at josh@thebirdwatch.com and I'll put them up here for post season mockery.

Added 2/24/04

Cards Fan in Cubs land calls the central for the Cards:

1. St. Louis Cardinals 2. Chicago Cubs 3. Milwaukee Brewers (Yes, really) 4. Houston Astros 5. Cincinnati Reds 6. Pittsburgh Pirates

I thought about putting the Brewers at the top of the bottom of the pile, but didn't have the guts.

Lineup

Larry Walker batting leadoff? asks Curveblog. It's an interesting idea and Boros makes a good case for it but there is a case to be made against it.

Let's say Larry Walker leading off, Eckstien Second, Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen after that.

If Larry Walker bats behind the pitcher then the pitcher sacrifice becomes risky. Say Matt Morris comes up with no outs and a runner on first (With Matheny no longer catching this is a possibility). He sacrifices the runner to second bringing up Walker.

Now the opposing manager can pitch to Walker with a runner in scoring position, or walk Walker and pitch to Eckstien in the same situation with the double play in order.

Eckstien can:

Hit into a double play.
Make a single out without advancing runners.
Make a single out advancing runners.
Get on base, potentially advancing or scoring runners.

In the first case the advantage was clearly towards walking Walker. In the last case the decision to walk Larry would add an extra runner to the mix, but because it would remove the chance of the runner on second advancing I'd say it cancels out (Ecksteins weak power means Walker isn't likely to score from first anyway).

It's the middle two cases which are intruiging: Would you rather face Larry Walker with a runner on Second and one out, with Eckstien and Pujols coming or face Pujols with 2 outs and the force on at three bases?

Personally Walkers power and Ecksteins lack of it would push me to walking Larry. The ability to skip a good hitter and possibly escape the inning unharmed outweighs the potential downside of facing Pujols with two men on. Pujols would occasionally crank a three run home run, but Eckstein would end some innings and Pujols would end a few himself. And Larry Walker would be completely neutralized.

With two outs and Walker up it's a complete no brainer. Larry would never bat in that situation.

This can all be overcome by battind Grudz 9th and moving the pitcher to 8th. Now the pitcher sacrifice isn't an issue because walking Grudz leads to Walker. Also Walker has a decent hitter in front of him increasing the chances of him batting with runners on. Grudz is a decent hitter but not good enough that his bat will be dearly missed earlier in the order.

If you wanted to get really cute you could put Grudz 8th and Eckstien 9th, with Walker, Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen 1-2-3-4. Each of those players gets the advantage of more at bats and after the first cycle through Walker and Pujols wouldn't be stymied by a lack of hitters in front of them.

Post-Dispatch

If you haven't been reading the Post-Dispatch's coverage of spring training, then you're missing some good stuff. Today for example:

"About what number I want," Grudzielanek... said, "I'll take No. 5."

There was also a follow-up message.

"Checked the roster," Grudzielanek's second message began, as he remembered, "I see you have some young guy wearing 5, so I'll go with 15 or 27."

I don't know if the lack of hockey (oh, yeah, today's the 25th anniversary of that game) or the trip to the World Series or fear of Brian Gunn, but it seems to me the PD has stepped it up a notch over previous years. That's good news.

Canseco's Interview

I'd rather talk about Rick Ankiel's curveball, David Eckstein's UZR or even Matt Morris's beard but... Will Carroll pointed out this blogger's take on the infamous Canseco interview on "60 Minutes." It's hard for me to buy his method completely, but it does make me wonder about some phone interviews I've run.

You Know It's Spring Training When...

...a pitcher coming off surgery and a bad season says he could be ready by April, well ahead of schedule. In this case it's Matt Morris, although Mike Lincoln is making similar noises. I'm skeptical. Players must walk a fine line between possibly malingering and hurting the team through injury-induced ineffectiveness. The past two seasons suggest that Morris has trouble dealing with the second type of risk, which means the Cardinals coaching staff needs to pick up the slack. Can LaRussa and Duncan say "No" to their one-time ace?

I'd also like to see what Rick Ankiel can do as a starter. Turning Ankiel into a LOOGY is like asking Ann-Margret to cook.

Sleepless Nights

A chat with Nate Silver:

Albert Pujols' weighted mean projection has him hitting "just" 39 homers - but that represents the average of a lot of possible seasons. In some of those seasons he'll hit 54 homers. In others, his heel will keep bothering, and he'll spend four months on the DL and hit 12 homers when he's healthy.

The idea of Pujols spending 4 months on the DL chills me to my very core.

More Steriods

This story about the BALCO investigation and steroids hits McGwire pretty hard:

As a kid growing up in San Jose, I watched lanky, loose-limbed Giants slugger Willie McCovey clobber low fastballs for towering home runs; more recently, as an Oakland A's beat writer for the Chronicle, I marveled at Mark McGwire's tight, coiled swing producing home runs with barely a twitch of all that muscle, which by then I understood was the product of years of steroid use.

It ends with this:

Still, there's reason to be skeptical whether the Chron's drive on this story will be emulated in the future, even by the paper itself. Ask yourself a question: What about McGwire? Who is asking him the hard questions about the year he broke Roger Maris's home run record? He was Giambi's best friend, and I've spoken with a number of reliable inside sources who've talked in explicit detail about his steroid use. But have any editors sent a reporter to show up at his door in Southern California, the way reporters often show up at front doors to badger coaches who've just been fired? Apparently not. What are they afraid of? Probably the truth.

There's one more interesting angle to this whole thing, from Will Carroll (linking to the same article):

This article by Steve Kettman shows a lot of interesting tips and a good grasp of the basics of this whole thing. It gets a LOT more interesting when you realize that Kettman is Jose Canseco’s ghostwriter on “Juiced.”

So the guy who wrote Juiced is reouting McGwire. It bothers me a little that a Journalist is kvetching because nobody is asking McGwire these questions. You're a journalist, do it yourself, lazy bastard. Somebody needs to put the screws on this guy: He says he's spoken to "several reliable sources" who say McGwire used steroids. Out em. If it's true it's time to have it out in the open instead of continuing to snipe from behind cover.

Be a man Kettman and publish what you know. Don't whine about how somebody else should do.

Lineup Order

James Click has a subscription-required article up at Baseball Prospectus about lineup orders. There actually wasn't much new there (he didn't include stolen bases, which along with other baserunning skills could make a huge difference in theory), but the following blurb did catch my eye:

The implications of this is that even if a general manager knows exactly what each player is going to hit in a given season, the 95% confidence range (typically two standard deviations) is about 160 runs. This is something that we don’t talk about too much, but think about that: you know exactly how each player is going to hit this year and your team could win 84 games or they could win 100. That's just statistics for you.

Again that's assuming you know how everybody's going to hit, which of course you don't, or at least I don't. Throw in the inherent difficulty of predicting pitchers and any optimism should be guarded, although I'd short the Cubs if I could.

Age-Defying Makeup?

With returning outfield starters Reggie Sanders, Jim Edmonds, and Larry Walker beginning the season at ages 37, 34, and 38 respectively (Edmonds turns 35 on June 27, thus making 2005 his age-35 season), durability and age-related performance declines are going to be a major question for the Cardinals in 2005. In that regard, I thought it'd be appropriate to look at the precedents -- in the form of their age-based similar players, courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com -- to see what kind of production we can expect from that trio in the coming months.

Some notes before I begin:

First off, when I averaged OPS+ among all the players in each group, I weighted it based on plate appearances. Also, when I computed average games played and average plate appearances, I assumed the same number of players played in the first season in question as in the second. Thus, I used zero games/plate appearances for any players who retired in the second season -- unless there was a player that didn't play the first season in that group, in which case I left one blank on the spreadsheet. And finally, the Sanders and Edmonds photos are courtesy the Associated Press, while the Walker photo is courtesy the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

LF - Reggie Sanders
age 36 (2004): 135 G, 487 PA, .260/.315/.482, 105 OPS+
Career: .267/.344/.488, 117 OPS+

Reggie had a decent year in '04, for a player that only cost the team $2 million. He'll get a raise to $4 million in '05, so perhaps he'll feel obligated to increase his production a bit, no? Here are his ten most similar batters through age 36, with similarity scores as well as age 36 & 37 statistics:

1. Ray Lankford (944)
age 36 (2003): 0 G
age 37 (2004): 92 G, 235 PA, .255/.349/.425, 102 OPS+
2. Eric Davis (915)
age 36 (1998): 131 G, 508 PA, .327/.388/.582, 151 OPS+
age 37 (1999): 58 G, 223 PA, .257/.359/.403, 93 OPS+
3. Ron Gant (912)
age 36 (2001): 93 G, 292 PA, .258/.345/.452, 95 OPS+
age 37 (2002): 102 G, 353 PA, .262/.338/.489, 123 OPS+
4. Bill Nicholson (911)
age 36 (1951): 85 G, 196 PA, .241/.342/.459, 114 OPS+
age 37 (1952): 55 G, 106 PA, .273/.390/.511, 149 OPS+
5. Kirk Gibson (905)
age 36 (1993): 116 G, 454 PA, .261/.337/.432, 107 OPS+
age 37 (1994): 98 G*, 382 PA, .276/.358/.548, 130 OPS+ (* - team played 115 games)
6. Darryl Strawberry (896)
age 36 (1998): 101 G, 345 PA, .247/.354/.542, 131 OPS+
age 37 (1999): 24 G, 66 PA, .327/.514/.612, 194 OPS+
7. Ben Oglivie (896)
age 36 (1985): 101 G, 394 PA, .290/.354/.440, 117 OPS+
age 37 (1986): 103 G, 384 PA, .283/.334/.390, 95 OPS+
8. Bobby Thomson (893)
age 36 (1960): 43 G, 133 PA, .250/.308/.417, 92 OPS+
age 37 (1961): 0 G
9. David Justice (888)
age 36 (2002): 118 G, 471 PA, .266/.376/.410, 106 OPS+
age 37 (2003): 0 G
10. Rick Monday (886)
age 36 (1982): 104 G, 254 PA, .257/.372/.481, 109 OPS+
age 37 (1983): 99 G, 208 PA, .247/.351/.399, 73 OPS+

Averages:
age 36: 99 G, 339 PA, .273/.358/.474, 117 OPS+ (13 HR, 49 RBI)
age 37: 70 G, 217 PA, .268/.355/.458, 111 OPS+ (8 HR, 31 RBI)

Several of these players appear to have had injuries or not started during the seasons in question, which is to be expected given their ages. (This will become a common theme.) Sanders' age-36 season seems most similar to those of Gant, Gibson, and Oglivie. In their age-37 seasons, Gant stayed fairly consistent -- if not slightly improving -- both performance-wise and health-wise, Oglivie declined to a below-average hitter for the first time in thirteen years in what would would be his final season, and Gibson had an excellent year -- he likely would've finished with 30 HR provided the 1994 strike didn't happen, and he remained healthy. As far as the combined rate stats go, the decline wasn't terrible at all -- however, this group's sample sizes are slightly smaller than the other two to come.

Sanders has never been the kind of player to play 162 games; his career high is 140 with the Giants in 2002. However, this strikes me as being due to his one-dimensional nature as a player rather than any serious durability problems, since he's been between 126 and 140 games played six of the last seven seasons. So, it seems that if he continues that trend by staying healthy, he'll probably put up slightly better numbers than last season -- I'll throw out an optimistic guess of .270/.320/.490, with Reggie once again playing about 130 games as a starter/platoon partner with John Mabry. Unfortunately, if he's not healthy, then all hell could break loose (which is the case with Edmonds and Walker, as well) -- as evidenced by the .232/.302/.403 line he produced in 2000, when he only played 103 games due to injuries. Despite that risk, I'd still take the over on .800 for Reggie's 2005 OPS if I were a betting man.

CF - Jim Edmonds
age 34 (2004): 153 G, PA, .301/.418/.643, 173 OPS+
Career: .294/.384/.544, 138 OPS+

Before I go any further, I have to admit that I absolutely worship James Patrick Edmonds. I'll even go to the lengths of calling it a man-crush. The guy plays his guts out with a flair for the dramatic, and to top it all off, he's damn good, too. He is coming off his best season in a Cardinal uniform, not to mention of his career, in 2004. However, Jimmy's season will likely be remembered most by his 12th-inning walkoff home run (pictured above) in Game 6 of the NLCS and his single-handedly keeping the Cards within reach in Game 7's early stages with a ridiculous diving catch the very next evening. Since joining the Cardinals in 2000, he's reinvented himself from enigma to potential future Hall of Famer with five consecutive excellent seasons. Here are Jimmy's ten most similar batters through age 34, again with similarity scores and age 34 and 35 statistics:

1. Tim Salmon (915)
age 34 (2003): 148 G, 621 PA, .275/.374/.464, 127 OPS+
age 35 (2004): 60 G, 206 PA, .253/.306/.323, 65 OPS+
2. Ellis Burks (899)
age 34 (1999): 120 G, 469 PA, .282/.394/.569, 153 OPS+
age 35 (2000): 122 G, 458 PA, .344/.419/.606, 166 OPS+
3. Fred Lynn (895)
age 34 (1986): 112 G, 456 PA, .287/.371/.499, 136 OPS+
age 35 (1987): 111 G, 438 PA, .253/.320/.487, 113 OPS+
4. Larry Doby (890)
age 34 (1958): 89 G, 276 PA, .283/.348/.490, 131 OPS+
age 35 (1959): 39 G, 124 PA, .230/.290/.301, 62 OPS+
5. David Justice (888)
age 34 (2000): 146 G, 605 PA, .286/.377/.584, 136 OPS+
age 35 (2001): 111 G, 439 PA, .241/.333/.430, 100 OPS+
6. Wally Berger (885)
age 34 (1940): 22 G, 47 PA, .302/.362/.419, 118 OPS+
age 35 (1941): 0 G
7. Hack Wilson (884)
age 34 (1934): 74 G, 235 PA, .245/.383/.365, 104 OPS+
age 35 (1935): 0 G
8. Larry Walker (881)
age 34 (2001): 142 G, 601 PA, .350/.449/.662, 160 OPS+
age 35 (2002): 136 G, 553 PA, .338/.421/.602, 146 OPS+
9. Willie Stargell (877)
age 34 (1974): 140 G, 605 PA, .301/.401/.537, 168 OPS+
age 35 (1975): 124 G, 526 PA, .295/.375/.516, 147 OPS+
10. Mo Vaughn (876)
age 34 (2002): 139 G, 558 PA, .259/.349/.456, 116 OPS+
age 35 (2003): 27 G, 96 PA, .190/.323/.329, 72 OPS+

Averages:
age 34: 113 G, 447 PA, .289/.386/.526, 139 OPS+ (22 HR, 72 RBI)
age 35: 73 G, 284 PA, .286/.365/.499, 125 OPS+ (12 HR, 45 RBI)

Jimmy's age-34 season was better than anyone on this list, but it most closely resembles those of Walker and Stargell. Both of them remained fairly healthy in their age-35 season and produced good, if not spectacular numbers -- although a slight decline from the previous year. Burks' age-34 season was also close, however, and he proceeded to have a monster year at age 35, hitting .344. The other side of the coin, however, shows Lynn and Justice, who had fairly significant dropoffs in production at 35. And finally, there's the recent cases of Salmon and Vaughn, both of whom completely fell apart between these two seasons. Vaughn retired after 2003, while Salmon will try to make a comeback in 2005. The average rate statistics for Edmonds' similar players do fall off more significantly than Sanders'; however, Edmonds had a better age 36 season than all of them, and appears to still be in his prime, so even if he does lose 14 points in OPS+, he'll still be an elite player.

Edmonds' durability was a question as an Angel, but he's managed to record at least 137 games played and 531 plate appearances every year since coming to St. Louis. I'd say that as long as he doesn't try to play through a major injury like during the second half of 2003, he'll do better than Walker and Stargell did at 35, by putting up at least .280/.390/.580 or so.

RF - Larry Walker
age 37 (2004): 82 G, 316 PA, .298/.424/.589, 152 OPS+
Career: .314/.401/.568, 140 OPS+

Larry was hurt for most of the first half of the 2004 season, but came back to put together a solid half-season and an excellent postseason, his first since 1995. He was traded from the Rockies to the Cardinals in the beginning of August, and his bat survived the drop to sea level without too much of a problem -- his OPS+ before the trade was 160; after the trade, it was 146. Not a catastrophic dropoff by any means. However, the fact remains that he's coming off an injury that kept him out those several months last season, which could affect his performance in addition to costing him games. So here are Larry's ten most similar batters through age 37, again with similarity scores and age 37 and 38 statistics:

1. Ellis Burks (891)
age 37 (2002): 138 G, 570 PA, .301/.362/.541, 134 OPS+
age 38 (2003): 55 G, 228 PA, .263/.360/.419, 112 OPS+
2. Chuck Klein (880)
age 37 (1942): 14 G, 14 PA, .071/.071/.071, -57 OPS+
age 38 (1943): 12 G, 20 PA, .100/.100/.100, -41 OPS+
3. Duke Snider (876)
age 37 (1964): 91 G, 189 PA, .210/.302/.323, 75 OPS+
age 38 (1965): 0 G
4. Willie Stargell (843)
age 37 (1977): 63 G, 222 PA, .274/.383/.548, 144 OPS+
age 38 (1978): 122 G, 450 PA, .295/.382/.567, 158 OPS+
5. Johnny Mize (837)
age 37 (1950): 90 G, 305 PA, .277/.351/.595, 142 OPS+
age 38 (1951): 113 G, 372 PA, .259/.339/.398, 102 OPS+
6. Reggie Smith (833)
age 37 (1982): 106 G, 398 PA, .284/.364/.470, 133 OPS+
age 38 (1983): 0 G
7. Earl Averill (822)
age 37 (1939): 111 G, 425 PA, .264/.353/.464, 102 OPS+
age 38 (1940): 64 G, 124 PA, .280/.309/.381, 71 OPS+
8. Dave Winfield (821)
age 37 (1989): 0 G
age 38 (1990): 132 G, 537 PA, .267/.338/.453, 122 OPS+
9. Dave Parker (820)
age 37 (1988): 101 G, 411 PA, .257/.314/.406, 103 OPS+
age 38 (1989): 144 G, 600 PA, .264/.308/.432, 111 OPS+
10. Fred Lynn (814)
age 37 (1989): 117 G, 406 PA, .241/.328/.371, 99 OPS+
age 38 (1990): 90 G, 223 PA, .240/.315/.357, 85 OPS+

Averages:
age 37: 92 G, 327 PA, .267/.345/.468, 117 OPS+ (14 HR, 49 RBI)
age 38: 81 G, 284 PA, .266/.336/.441, 115 OPS+ (11 HR, 44 RBI)

Klein, Snider, and Averill all played in a different era where most players were retired by this age, and thus probably aren't applicable to our situation. The two players who had age-37 seasons similar to Walker's are Mize and that man Stargell, again. I'll consider Winfield as similar, also, since he lost his entire age-37 season to injury. The three offer a spectrum similar to that of Sanders' comparables. Stargell played most of a full season and hit better at 38 than 37, and Winfield played most of a full season at a decent level at 38, but Mize, despite recording more plate appearances, lost nearly 200 points of slugging percentage. Other worrisome signs include Burks and Lynn, who became part-time players at 38 due to injuries and lack of production. The average rate stats decline a little bit -- more in the raw numbers than the park-adjusted OPS+, however, which is a good sign for Walker.

Larry, to me, is going to be the toughest Cardinal outfielder to read in 2005, both health-wise and production-wise. He's had two seasons in the past five where he hasn't played 100 games, but he also had a season in which he played 143 games but only slugged .476 as a Rockie (2003). His numbers as a Cardinal were very good (.280/.393/.560), and hopefully will stay that way if he's healthy. I'll go out on a limb and say that, when Larry plays and hits second, ahead of Pujols-Rolen-Edmonds, I don't see why he can't do at least .280/.380/.580 once more. The biggest key for him, though, will be playing 120+ games -- because Mabry isn't going to do .280/.380/.550. Mabry may have another solid season, but last year's career year for him of .296/.363/.504 doesn't even sniff at what Walker might do if healthy.

I wasn't sure what I'd get from this exercise, other than a lot of numbers running through my head. But I think it proved to me that despite the age of the Cardinal outfield, if they're able to remain healthy (which I'm confident/hopeful that they will do), their production shouldn't decline much. And that's a good sign, given that the Cards could use big years out of all three of them.

What he said

USS Mariner has a good post about steriods in baseball.

I got into an argument about this once, and it ended with the guy saying "You can't honestly believe that McGuire didn't do steroids?". That's the kind of discussion we're in here. There's no proof and circumstantial evidence at best, but we're surrounded by people saying "C'mon" mistaking the vehemance of their belief for fact.

Big Mac's HOF Chances in Jeopardy?

Uh oh. Here we go. Now that loudmouth and ex-convict, Jose Canseco, has pointed the finger, many are beginning to doubt Big Mac's chances of getting into the Hall of Fame when he becomes eligible in 2007. Again, I raised the question earlier about McGwire's innocence, but how do we compare this case to that of one Peter Edward Rose. He, too, was strung up by the media by someone with less than stellar credibility and look where he lives now.

Literary Genius

As everybody knows, Jose Canseco's book is now for sale, and apparently a lot of people are buying it. Enough so that it's third on Amazon's bestseller list after one day. I don't know who these people are, and I really honestly have no idea whether to believe if Canseco is a credible source for insider steroid information or not. But how can anybody with a right mind fork over their hard-earned money for this drivel?

"By the time my 8-year-old daughter, Josie, has graduated from high school, a majority of all professional athletes -- in all sports -- will be taking steroids. And believe it or not, that's good news," he writes. "I have no doubt whatsoever that intelligent, informed use of steroids, combined with Human Growth Hormone, will one day be so accepted that everybody will be doing it. Steroid use will be more common than Botox is now. Every baseball player and pro athlete will be using at least low levels of steroids. As a result, baseball and other sports will be more exciting and more entertaining."

You have got to be kidding me. What a nut!

More Than A Feeling

We're getting there. The signs of a new season are in the air. Pedro has reported to Mets camp early, I'm dreaming about a February exhibition at Wrigley between the Cards and Cubs (not a good idea), and the generic "X Questions" piece has shown up in the Post-Dispatch. Strauss does a nice job covering all the issues, but this article is a classic example of the constraints under which sportswriters work. Really the top four questions should read:

(1) Health of Pujols' feet
(2) Health of Rolen's knee
(3) Health of Edmonds' whole body
(4) Health of Mulder's body and psyche ("he put too much pressure on himself in 2004")

Beyond that you have the health of Isringhausen (hip surgery could be very good or very bad), the health of Morris and Carpenter, and the health plus age and post-Coors issues for Walker. Oh, you could probably throw in the health of Anthony Reyes and Adam Wainwright too. Ankiel and the middle infield certainly are legit concerns, but if the fate of the season rides that heavily on whether Luna or some Nuñez makes the roster -- Strauss lists that as Question #1 -- then I don't want to watch.

Am I the only Cardinal fan who while watching KU basketball thinks Keith Langford should have a decent P/FGA with a lots of air balls and lots of FTs made?

Cardinals Pitchers in Fantasy Baseball

By the Iron_Throne

Two weeks ago, I covered Cardinals hitters and their draft positions in fantasy baseball. I found that the Cards hitters are mostly solid picks with little upside for where they will be drafted. However, in pitching, the Cards are a treasure seeker's goldmine. Roundly criticized for not being able to pitch last postseason, most of the starters will be going for less than they’re worth. Even though the Cardinals staff was the best in the NL, the value isn’t concentrated in easily draftable parts. While it’s super fantastic that the middle relief and bullpen was so great, outside of a closer and the top setup men, you rarely have any of those guys on your roster. What the Cards have is good value in their starters spread out over about six pitchers. But by drafting for value and not star power, you can fill out your fantasy staff.

Pitcher predictions will be in the form W/K/S/ERA/WHIP.

SP Mark Mulder is the lone exception to the starters being unknown. His face was in a lot of papers this off season, and will get a bump from being a “number one.” Facing pitchers two or three times a game should boost his Ks. Pitchers are always a more uncertain bet than hitters, but injured pitchers usually say stay away. He’ll most likely be a solid pick when he goes at the middle of the fourth round in your league, but you can get someone of equal value there who didn’t have a terrible second half or lose a year to a hip injury. The extra wins he’ll get in front of this lineup should almost make it worth it, but let someone else take the risk. Remember, if one of your top players goes down, you’ll be replacing him with someone who starts the season on the FA list. Leave risk for the mid rounds or other people. If he’s healthy he’ll give you 190 innings at 17/140/0/3.35/1.19.

SP Chris Carpenter will likely be forgotten by most people outside of Saint Louis, or discounted because of his season-ending injury along with his history. However, he was nearly healthy enough to pitch in the World Series, so he should be fine to start the season. A better health risk than Mulder in my opinion, he’ll repay your pick in W alone, and his K should justify his innings pitched. The well above average ERA and WHIP he should post will just be gravy. He’ll probably be a bargain when you take him in the ninth, but he’ll be under the radar enough that there’s no reason to take him earlier. He’ll go at least 200 innings, and be as good as Mulder at 18/160/0/3.45/1.20.

SP Jason Marquis is a medium risk, medium reward pitcher that at least will use your innings and not hurt your team, which is rarer for a SP than you might think. Don’t pay for him based on last year’s ERA, he was most likely having a career year. Expect him to add a little less than half a run to his ERA, but keep an eye on him if he falls to far. His WHIP was a concern last year, but will regress a bit, even with a shaky middle infield. With the least name recognition on the staff, he may fall farther than others on the team, but has a some upside and good win potential. He may be there in the eleventh, when a pick is merited, but don’t overreach. Another workhorse, look for 200 innings of 15/135/0/4.00/1.35.

SP Jeff Suppan will go for more than he’s worth, as the only thing of value he’ll bring is his lineup. With a better name than Marquis, he’ll get picked by someone before you get there, but his solid numbers last year are likely a fluke at 16/110/0/4.16/1.37 When last we saw the real Jeff Suppan, he was a league average pitcher, and now he’s two years older. With not much upside to speak of and few strikeouts, he’ll be a good placeholder while you look for hot rookies or whoever is starting against the Mariners that day. Take him in the fifteenth if you’re afraid of risks, but that pick would be better spent gambling on a rookie or someone who was injured last year. A pedestrian 210 innings of 15/115/0/4.40/1.35.

SP Matt Morris will also far farther than he should, and most who pick him up will immediately place him on the DL while his shoulder heals. He still struck out 5.9 batters per nine, and his 1.29 WHIP was better than his 4.72 ERA last year. His recovery timetable will be well publicized, slated now for early June, and his poor season will overcome his name recognition. He’ll go anywhere from the fifteenth round to undrafted, and if your league has two DL spots per team, he’s a solid eighteenth/nineteenth round pick. If he misses two months, he may struggle to even repay this investment, especially if he’s on a short leash when he gets back. But how often do you get good value in the nineteenth round? Mine usually are by the wayside before April is over. A midseason start means 110 innings, 9/90/0/3.90/1.25.

SP Rick Ankiel is the true gem of the staff. Even the sharpest managers are going to let him go, and when you pick him with your last pick you’ll hear uncontrollable laughter or sulfurous curses depending on how good your league is. Better than most young pitchers who have to fight to win a job out of middle relief, he’ll be handed a chance to show his stuff right out of the gate, even though he may be skipped a bit at first. Essentially risk free, you can leave him on the bench until he proves himself if you want, and if he flames out it won’t cost you anything but a roster spot. With a ceiling as high as Santana or Johnson, this is where being a Cardinals fan pays off. W he’ll get from the uniform, and he’s always had the Ks. You’ll get him and he could easily push you into contention. Of course he could also flame out and never be heard from again. But unlike Griffey he won’t cost you a dime. If you forget about him on draft day, he’ll still be there the next day once you realize you drafted the wrong Dan Kolb. I’m picking him to keep a rotation spot for the whole season, and put up 18/180/0/3.45/1.25 in 190 innings. Can’t beat that.

RP Jason Isringhausen has been one of the more overrated closers in fantasy the last couple of years, always finding a way to end up short on S for excellent teams. Last year was his first solid year picking up 47 wins while the Cards cruised to 105. Suffering the curse of the high scoring team, he’ll always have fewer S than a Gagne. He won’t get enough K to make a difference, and his ERA isn’t small enough to have a noticeable effect, so you’re only drafting his S. The Cards figure to be a great team again this year, and I haven’t heard anything about lingering injuries, so figure him for 3/75/40/3.50/1.20 in 65 games.

Middle relievers Julian Tavarez and Ray King are two great pitchers that have fantasy only if you have more lineup spots than inning pitched. If you can fit them in, they will give you good K for the innings they use, and higher W rates than even the best starters. Tavarez is coming along well after his disastrous NLCS, and should be the top setup man for Izzy and should step into his shoes should another injury befall him. King would also get some S from an Izzy injury and put up better rate stats than Tavarez. I generally don’t play in leagues that allow much room to fit in any but the topmost setup men, and neither King nor Tavarez have the 10+ K/9 needed. No other relief pitcher figures to have much fantasy impact this season, as the likes of Carmen Cali and Cal Eldred and the rest of the middle relievers won’t have the stats to make a dent, and no young pitchers like Wainwright look to be needed for the rotation this season.

So once again the Cards are a mixed bag on draft day, with name recognition causing inflation for everyone except for Rick Ankiel. The Cards look to be solid picks across the board with very little risk for the investment, and the bonus wins will keep roster fillers like Marquis and Suppan from burning you. If you spent your picks to take every one of the Cardinals you’d have a staff that would keep you in contention while leaving a lot of high picks to take your hitters.

the Iron_Throne

Sickels

John Sickels, ESPN.com's erstwhile expert on baseball prospects, has a new blog. Sickels tries to balance his reports between stats and tools, making him one of the better prospect gurus out there. It should be a strong blog, especially if he gets more free time after the social services folks see that picture of Sickels' kid in Star Trek gear. I like the cats though.

On Juicing--from an expert

Brian Walton, at The Cardinals Birdhouse, has a fascinating interview with fitness expert/journalist (and also native St. Louisan and Cardinal fan) Lou Schuler regarding the recent Jose Canseco "juicing" revelations. Schuler has some interesting, and IMHO, sensible, observations on the whole steroid controversy in MLB, but check it out for yourself.

HOWEVER, for those of you who want an expert opinion on the ultimate question, "Was 'Big Mac' juiced?":

Specifically, how do we ensure athletes who are not users are not unjustly accused? After all, isn’t most evidence circumstantial, such as in the case of Mark McGwire?

You can’t. You can only look at what we know to be humanly possible without drugs, and judge for yourself whether or not guys like McGwire exceeded it.

I loved baseball in 1998. I made my son come watch every McGwire at-bat with me, even though he was only 2 and couldn’t have cared less, just to be able to say he and I saw the record-breaking shots together.

And even at the time, I figured McGwire and Sosa were both juiced. I didn’t care. As a fan, particularly as a Cardinal fan, I was in heaven.

I can’t say with any certainty that McGwire took steroids – and andostenedione doesn’t count, since no studies have shown it works well enough to produce the kind of size and strength McGwire had.

Circumstantially, all the signs were there. He turned 35 right about the time he hit his 70th homer. That season he had an OPS of 1.222. Athletes typically peak in their late 20s. Mac’s highest slugging percentage in his 20s was .618, in ’87, when he was A.L. rookie of the year. He started that season at 23.

At 28, in ’92, he had a slugging percentage of .585. The next few years are screwed up, with his injuries and the strike, but then all of a sudden, in 1995, he jumps up to a .685 slugging percentage, then .730 in ’96, on up to .752 in ’98.

You just can’t find a precedent in baseball history for that. Ted Williams had an amazing season when he was ’38, in 1957, but it was amazing because it almost equaled his previous best season, 1941, when he was 22 and hit .406.

Henry Aaron is another one who had some great seasons in his late ‘30s, but they weren’t dramatically better than his best seasons when he was in his 20s. And in terms of total bases, they weren’t really close to what he did when he was 25. He had 400 that year, but in his 30s he never came close to that, even though he was hitting tons of homers.

More ZIPS

It originally was posted ten days ago, but I just read at Primer about this. A Yankee fan simmed the 2005 season 100 times using Dan Szymborski's ZIPS with Diamond Mind's engine. I'm shocked, in a good way, at how well the Cardinals' pitchers projected (average 641 runs allowed). As a result, in these positive projections the Cardinals show up as a 96-66 team. What's almost as shocking is that Cubs pitching projects to be thoroughly mediocre.

The usual caveats about garbage in-garbage out apply, and we can probably throw another caveat in there about Yankees fans not caring that much about the NL Central (e.g., Pujols starting in LF). But it's nice to see on a snowy day in Indianapolis the day after my alma mater's basketball team lost a game they could've won against the #1 team in the nation.

All-Star Shenanigans

It doesn't seem like very long ago when the Cardinal owners were using the promise of hosting an All-Star game (2006, in this case) as an argument for building a new ballpark in St. Louis. Well, it seems that 2006 and now 2007 will both be elsewhere. (Apparently I missed this during the World Series.) And, since Pittsburgh and San Francisco -- both National League cities -- are hosting the 2006 and 2007 games, respectively, it seems very unlikely that St. Louis will host in 2008 as well due to the custom of sharing between the leagues. This only prolongs the shaft job that the best fans in baseball have been subjected to in recent years.

Here's a list of teams who by 2007 will have hosted the game twice (or more!) since the Cardinals last hosted, in 1966:

California/Anaheim Angels (1967, 1989 - Dodgers hosted in 1980)
Houston Astros (1968, 1986, 2004)
Cincinnati Reds (1970, 1988)
Detroit Tigers (1971, 2005)
Atlanta Braves (1972, 2000)
Pittsburgh Pirates (1974, 1994, 2006)
Milwaukee Brewers (1975, 2002)
Philadelphia Phillies (1976, 1996)
San Diego Padres (1978, 1992)
Seattle Mariners (1979, 2001)
Cleveland Indians (1981, 1997)
Chicago White Sox (1983, 2003 - Cubs hosted in 1990)
San Francisco Giants (1984, 2007 - A's hosted in 1987)

The Baltimore Orioles and the Texas Rangers version of the Washington Senators receive honorable mention, with the Sens hosting in 1969 and the O's hosting in 1993. Overall, that's fourteen cities/metropolitan areas hosting the game twice, and five hosting three times since the Cardinals last did.

Here's a list of the remaining teams, and when they last hosted:

Tampa Bay Devil Rays (never, created in 1998)
Arizona Diamondbacks (never, created in 1998)
Florida Marlins (never, created in 1993)
Boston Red Sox (1999)
Colorado Rockies (1998)
Texas Rangers (1995)
Baltimore Orioles (1993)
Toronto Blue Jays (1991)
Chicago Cubs (1990)
Oakland A's (1987)
Minnesota Twins (1985)
Washington Nationals/Montreal Expos (1982)
Los Angeles Dodgers (1980)
New York Yankees (1977)
Kansas City Royals (1973)
St. Louis Cardinals (1966)
New York Mets (1964)

Only Mets fans have been denied longer than St. Louis, and they don't even really count because the Yankees have hosted since. The Royals are next. Will MLB's midsummer classic ever return to the Show-Me State?

Pujols Day at BaseballChannel.tv

I usually ignore any link about video on mlb.com and it's sub-sites, because most of it requires a subscription or a pay-per-view fee. This one however, is actually free. Apparently they've got 2 24hr video loops, one called BaseballChannel.tv (Beyond Games), and the other called Cooperstown.tv (Classic Games). The schedule only goes a couple days out, but check out Thursday's lineup.

Starting at 10AM they're airing a Cards/Pirates game from June 1, 2004, where Pujols went 5-for-5. At 1:15, it's the aptly named (by RedbirdNation) "Pujols Game", in which Albert was also 5-for-5, this time with 3HR, 4R, and 5RBI, as the Cards came back from a 7-1 defecit in the 2nd inning to win the game by a final score of 11-8. Then, at 5:15, we're taken to Cincy in mid-August of last year, where Pujols is tied with Sean Casey for the league lead in homeruns, but not for long. His 37th longball of the season leads the Cards to their 12th victory in 14 tries vs. the Reds. Finally, at 8:45, we get to see a late September game in which Pujols notches his 500th career RBI, helping Marquis become the 4th Cardinal pitcher to get to 15 victories on the season, the first time that's happened since 1944.

Story of the Year?

Curveblog

the defense is an enormous concern. pinto and chronicles' range/run estimates may have limitations, but they provide an excellent starting point for understanding what may be the 2005 cardinals' make-or-break issue.

K Rates for Cardinal Starters next year:

Player      k/9
Mulder      5.58
Carpenter   7.52
Marquis     6.17
Morris      5.84
Suppan      5.27

The Cardinals were second in the majors in total chances last year. The Cardinals are very dependent on their defense and they will be again next year. The consesus (pulled from curvblog) is that Eckstien alone will cost the Cardinals 18-30 runs next year.

It will be an interesting year.

I get first pick...

Seriously, if we were playing a pickup game right now, and you got first pick, wouldn't you pick Pujols? I don't care about salary, fantasy baseball, MVP, world series titles, or clear creams. I'd pick Albert Pujols first and fast. [If they do remake the classic "The Warriors", AP would be the scariest dude in the Baseball Furies, by a lot.]

Does anybody speak Korean?

I'm looking for any good Korean-American Cardinals fan, or any Korean-Korean Cardinals fan to help translate. Baseball Think Factory pointed out some of the funniest baseball cartoons I've ever seen (and I can't even read them). There are several dealing with the Cards, and you can get some of the jokes just by looking at the pictures.

The World Series.

Something about the NLDS against the Dodgers.

Something about the NLCS.

Rick Ankiel.

And something totally incomprehensible about Ben Sheets and the Cards.

Magglio Ordonez

It appears that Magglio Ordonez has signed a five-year, $75 million deal with the Detroit Tigers. The Hampton and Dreifort deals were probably worse, but this is up there, even with the "out" the Tigers have in case Magglio's knee acts up. Let's put it this way: If the Tigers are lucky and Magglio stays healthy, then an option year will vest and six seasons of Magglio (age 31-36) will cost the Tigers a bit more than eight years of Rolen (age 28-35) will cost the Cardinals.

In other news the Patriots won their third Super Bowl in four years. I continue to feel a little better about my odd habit of yelling "LaRussa, you idiot" whenever Michigan coach Lloyd Carr left Tom Brady on the bench in favor of Drew Henson.

Canseco Implicates McGwire

Jose Canseco, who was once traded to Ethiopia for a box of Froot Loops and a camel to be named later, is finally ready to implicate almost everyone in the major leagues in his tell-all book, Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits and How Baseball Got Big, due out February 21.

According to ESPN:

Canseco writes that he personally injected Mark McGwire with the drug and that he saw McGwire and Jason Giambi inject each other, according to the paper.

McGwire, who has long denied steroid use, said in a statement to the paper: "I have always told the truth and I am saddened that I continue to face this line of questioning. With regard to this book, I am reserving comment until I have the chance to review its contents myself."

Jose Can You See also takes a swipe at former baseball owner and current POTUSA.

Canseco writes that President Bush "had to have been aware" of rampant steroid use on the Texas Rangers when he owned the club in the early 1990s, the Daily News reported.

Whether true or not, this probably comes as no shock to most of Cardinal Nation.

Jose Canseco is just a jerk who is trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame.

However, despite Big Mac's admission to taking Andro, and despite his rookie year record 49 homers while weighing 225, it's likely that he double-dipped in the steroid pool just based on the Bondsian growth of his noggin during his 16-year career.

Still, innocent until proven guilty, I say; and even if he did, the steroids didn't swing the bat.

BUT...

If he did (take steroids), he certainly wasn't setting a good example for the millions of kids, not to mention special athletes everywhere, who came out in droves just to watch him take batting practice.

BA's Top Ten Prospect List

Baseball America, the pre-eminent prospect tracker, has posted the Cards' top ten prospects. I'll spare you the suspense:

1. Anthony Reyes, rhp
2. Adam Wainwright, rhp
3. Blake Hawksworth, rhp
4. Chris Lambert, rhp
5. Stuart Pomeranz, rhp
6. Brad Thompson, rhp
7. Brendan Ryan, ss
8. Chris Duncan, 1b
9. Cody Haerther, of
10. Carmen Cali, lhp

The good news is that Reyes really could be that good and he'll probably start the season at AAA. In other words he's very close to contributing, perhaps in a substantial fashion. If you sent Carpenter or Mulder down to AA, they probably wouldn't pitch any better than Reyes did last season. The other good news is that Wainwright, Thompson and Cali are close as well.

The bad news is that the Cardinals don't have a position prospect of note. I'd argue with their rankings and put Haerther first, but Haerther's not especially young and his numbers aren't especially impressive. Ryan's line in 2004 (322/356/404) is a stat-head's nightmare, especially considering he was a bit old (22) for the Midwest League in 2004. The party line on Duncan is that he finally put it together in 2004; the stat-head line is that he had a career year. His listing over Orlando Palmeiro clones Schumaker and Gorecki (well, Gorecki bats RH, has a little pop, and plays good defense, so maybe he's a younger, deluxe version of So Taguchi) suggests the Cardinals were lobbying for their former first round pick/pitching coach's son.

Cubs ZIPS

With the recent Sosa trade and subsequent Burnitz signing, the Cubs appear to be done this off-season. So how do they stack up? I'm projecting the Cubs score about 785 runs next season, basically the same as their 789 tallies in 2004. I've also got them giving up about 695 runs in 2005, 30 runs worse than in 2004 (the Cubs underperformed their Pythagorean by 5 games in 2003). That's a Pythagorean of about 90 wins, or a game behind my similar quick and dirty projection for the Cardinals.

The error bars around these kinds of projections are probably 5-6 games and that's if you have perfect information, which I don't. From where I sit, the Cards and Cubs are statistically even. (You might want to visit here before continuing.)

I could give a big list of caveats -- Will Dusty really give Dubois 300 at-bats? How much will Nomar's defense hurt? Can the young starters stay healthy? Etc. -- but I'll keep it short and say this is for entertainment purposes only. Here are the particulars; note that I've hedged a tad with the innings for the Cubs' Big Four starters:

Name            AVG   OBP   SLG    AB      XR
Barrett        .278  .338  .463   400    59.8 
Blanco         .201  .258  .343   150    12.5 
Burnitz        .232  .311  .461   450    64.9 
Cedeno         .228  .269  .313    25     2.1 
DuBois         .272  .345  .500   300    50.1 
Garciaparra    .288  .339  .487   550    86.4 
Hairston Jr.   .286  .354  .387   400    54.3 
Hollandsworth  .266  .333  .432   400    54.8 
Jackson        .244  .301  .367    25     2.7 
Kelton         .242  .305  .415   100    12.7 
Kopitzke       .217  .271  .261    25     1.6 
Lee            .280  .375  .512   600   113.2 
Lewis          .262  .321  .383    25     3.0 
Macias         .239  .276  .347   150    13.5 
Patterson      .275  .320  .449   600    85.3 
Perez          .238  .273  .313   100     7.8 
Ramirez        .287  .346  .522   550    94.8 
Reyes          .295  .335  .440    25     3.4 
Walker         .278  .341  .419   400    55.2 
Pitchers       .162  .186  .227   325     7.4
Total          .264  .328  .440 5,600   785.6

Name                   ERA     IP        RA
Borowski              3.63     60      25.8
Dempster              5.11     60      37.4
Farnsworth            4.16     60      30.4
Fox                   4.86     30      17.8
Guzman                4.83     30      17.4
Hawkins               3.12     60      22.3
Leicester             5.45     45      30.0
Maddux                3.98    190      92.3
Mitre                 4.50     45      24.5
Prior                 2.79    190      64.4
Remlinger             4.34     60      32.1
Rusch                 4.22    160      82.0
Wellemeyer            5.00     30      18.1
Williamson            3.97     60      28.5
Wood                  3.91    190      90.9
Zambrano              3.52    190      80.8
Total                 3.92  1,460     694.7

Jocketty is Backetty

Okay, so we worried about Walt not being renewed (okay it was more of brief look of consternation on the face of Cardinal Nation) and we worried that he wouldn't get what he's worth (more than So Taguchi, at least), but it was apparently all for naught.

The Post-Dispatch reports:

The Cardinals announced today that general manager Walt Jocketty agreed to a three-year contract extension through 2007.

Financial terms were not disclosed. According to Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz, Jocketty's average salary will be more than $1 million per year.

That makes him worth at least 3 Hector Lunas.

From the Top

I promise you no research went into this post. There are a few of things I wanted to comment on around Cardinaldom but just never got toegether so I'm going to dump them all here:

Sammy to the Orioles

Wow. The biggest piece of this deal that I think will go unreported is how it puts the lie to Dusty Bakers reputation as a great players manager. Dusty's job is to get the best players he has on the field and playing. Part of that is keeping them happy and Dusty should have addressed the Sosa personality clash within the team and kept it from getting out of hand. Instead he dumped a Cubs great and a great player because they didn't get along. If I owned the Cubs I'd have fired Baker this offseason. It's his job to keep things running smoothly, not to villify his best players.

I've criticized La Russa enough in the past, but the star players under La Russa never complain about anything. The players La Russa has problems with are generally past their prime players whose roles are being adjusted, and they have a hard time with that (That's a failure on La Russas part, he needs to address those concerns, but in the pantheon of managerial shortcomings it's an extremely minor one). My opinion of La Russa has been rising in the last few years, not because of things hes done but because of stupid things other managers have done.

NL Central

Can I be forgiven for thinking the Cards just about have the NL Central wrapped up? The Cubs offense is gutted, the Astros are another year older and deeper in debt, they lost their best player down the stretch. The Cardinals are the only Central team that has gotten better this offseason (maybe the Reds/Pirates/Bre