Around the horn
As others see us
SI’s John Donovan, acknowledging that the Cardinals are flawed, still picks them to win the Central (ellipses mine):
The defending-champion Cardinals are favored to repeat, but they’ll have to do it with a vastly different roster. The Cards lost a ton of players to trades, free agency or retirement over the winter … They’ve plugged those holes, for the most part, and they still sport a killer rotation … Pitching’s more than half the battle, so the Cards should be OK.
Replace “Cardinals” with “Braves” and you’ve pretty much got the story of the best team in the NL East lo these many years. The clubs are similar, too, in that each has a shrewd general manager who “plugs the holes” despite regular turnover and a manager who gets the most out of his players, though with markedly different methods. Lest anyone worry about the Cardinals’ corner outfield personnel, Jerry Crasnick (who, by the way, also picks the Cardinals in the Central) reminds us that the Braves won their division last year after beginning the season with Raul Mondesi and Brian Jordan in the corner spots.
Enlightened writer watch
Wins are an overrated stat; let’s switch to win shares. Moneyball, guys. Anything Joe Morgan hates with such passion must have some validity.
– SI’s Ethan Trex
Great point. But why does it take a guy who looks like he’s in high school to make it?
Can you hear them now? Good.
Cardinals radio network strongest in team history — team press release
This just in
Cards shoot for 3rd straight title — Chicago Tribune headline
Unenlightened writer watch
Dempster finished with 33 saves, and led the National League in save percentage.
Carrie Muskat, call your office. Your editor needs a word with you.
Please, people, it’s 2006 already. Saves are so 20th-century. Why not try quoting a stat that actually has meaning: Dempster ranked 43rd among all relievers last year in ARP — Adjusted Runs Prevented from scoring — and he ranked 4th among relievers in WXRL (Expected wins added over a replacement-level pitcher). Isn’t that better?
Should I know who that is?
Angels sign Jeff Weaver — AP headline
Hit a homer for Homer
Greek god of walks finally gets chance — AP headline
Good thing he pulled over
Freel looking to get past latest arrest — AP headline
Daydream Believer
Speaking of Ryan Dempster, the Arizona heat may already be getting to him:
Obviously, we lost a lot of guys to injuries. Everybody says, ‘Oh, other teams had injuries.’ No. We lost Prior for a little bit, we lost Wood, we lost Nomar, we lost Aramis. You go to the Cardinals and say you’re going to lose Carpenter, Morris, Rolen — who they did lose — and Pujols, they won’t be the same team. This year, we’ve got the guys we’ve got, and if we stay healthy and with the additions we’ve got, we are a playoff team.
I’m not sure if Dempster is trying to recall the Cardinals’ injuries last year or simply state the hypothetic, but in either case, he’s a bit off. He’s conflating the “loss” of a free-agent signing (Morris) with the loss of games due to injury. But the injury excuse only goes so far when you consider that the Cardinals were injured last year, too. In terms of games missed, you could even make the argument that they were worse hit than the Cubs:
| Cubs | Missed (starts) | Cardinals | Missed |
| Garciaparra | 100 | Rolen | 106 |
| Ramirez | 39 | Walker | 62 |
| Prior | 27 (5.4) | Sanders | 69 |
| Wood | 112 (22.4) | Grudzielanek | 25 |
| Molina | 33 | ||
| Total | 278 | Total | 295 |
Granted, it’s hard to underestimate the impact of unhealthy starting pitchers. But Dempster’s comments raise a an important point: Though injuries are largely a crapshoot, they also can be managed, and at some point, the Cubs are accountable for the players they build their team with. The Cardinals, by the same token, seem to have healthier pitchers, by some combination of luck, usage and decisions on types of players to acquire. Relying on the perennially injured Wood has turned out to be a bad strategy (whereas the Cardinals, for instance, chose not to invest in a player like JD Drew, who, while not a pitcher, represents the same principle).
Cardinals played it smart this offseason
As any number of writers will tell you, the Cardinals didn’t make any exciting offseason acquisitions. But at least they didn’t make any of the most foolish ones, according to Ken Rosenthal, like the Giants’ signing of Matt Morris or the Blue Jays’ hiring of AJ Burnett, either of whom might’ve been a Cardinal if not for the team’s restraint.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:28 am
Back to the hall of fame and retired uni numbers…
Pip:
I have always felt that for most teams having a uni number retired was an honor greater than even the HoF. Case in point, prior to the 1990s, I thought the Cards only retired 2 real numbers: Musial & Boyer. Certinly guys like Mize or Medwick would have made the cut if they spent their whole careers in the ‘Lou, but as it turns out they didn’t. Ditto for Mex. He was the finest NL first baseman of his generation and defensively he was the finest ever. He belongs in the Hall no matter if he wears a Cap from the Cards or the Muts. But that doesn’t mean we should retire #37.
February 17th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Hear, hear to the Win Shares instead of Wins comment! I like the way he’s thinking!
February 17th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Interesting take, Zubin. I wonder how many teams have more HOFers (whose careers started after 1937) than retired numbers.
I looked at the Yankees, since they probably have the most in both categories. Ten of their 16 retired numbers are HOFers (several of their HOFers played before the uniform-number era). Interesting.
Care to help me work on a formula for determining/predicting uniform-number retirement?
February 17th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Pip:
I don’t think thats quite a fair comparison. Both clubs may have developed (found) and equal amount of talent in the 30s and 40s, but the Cards business model in the required them to sell a fair bit of talent to break-even. Like I said had Mize, Medwick, Slaughter, Cooper… spent more of their careers in St Louis, I’m sure their numbers would be retired.
I’m not sure the criteria should be that radically different between the HoF and RN (Retired Number) except that the later only considers what the guy did as a memeber of a particular team.
Take this guy for instance: http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/manushe01.shtml.
Pretty amazing career: .330 hitter, 0.475 slg, 2500 hits over 17 seasons. But I doubt if he was ever in one place long enough for a team to consider retiring his number.
Thats just my opinion Pip. Like I said, I think a retired number is in ways a higher honor than the HoF.
And if you are willing I’d love to help investigate a predictive model for RNs.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Let’s do it, Zubin: Send me an email at matthew_r_philip @ yahoo.com