What the Cardinals really need (on offense)
A few weeks ago, we noted that the Cardinals had no reason to improve their outfield, inasmuch as it was one of the most productive in the league last year by total Runs Created. We thought we’d expand the exercise to cover all of the offensive positions to see where, if anywhere, John Mozeliak and company might look to upgrade this winter:
| Team | C | 1B | 2B | 3B | SS | LF | CF | RF | Total |
| CHC | 86.9 | 108.7 | 104.7 | 118.3 | 91.2 | 118.7 | 104.7 | 87.6 | 820.8 |
| STL | 71.7 | 146.4 | 87.8 | 104.2 | 63.8 | 92.1 | 111.1 | 123.9 | 801.0 |
| PHI | 66.2 | 110.6 | 127.5 | 66.9 | 108.4 | 111.2 | 113.3 | 89.4 | 793.5 |
| NYM | 68.5 | 105.2 | 74.3 | 130.1 | 120.4 | 83.1 | 117.8 | 93.0 | 792.4 |
| COL | 85.6 | 87.7 | 77.7 | 98.8 | 83.1 | 139.6 | 86.0 | 115.1 | 773.6 |
| MIL | 67.6 | 113.3 | 99.6 | 78.5 | 98.1 | 116.5 | 101.1 | 88.4 | 763.1 |
| FLA | 64.6 | 98.3 | 103.1 | 90.9 | 137.8 | 101.8 | 85.6 | 80.7 | 762.8 |
| ATL | 91.4 | 106.8 | 100.6 | 137.3 | 83.2 | 75.4 | 88.9 | 62.2 | 745.8 |
| ARI | 82.9 | 96.5 | 86.5 | 82.1 | 110.1 | 72.9 | 89.1 | 93.2 | 713.3 |
| PIT | 92.5 | 94.8 | 74.4 | 67.1 | 54.1 | 119.1 | 113.5 | 93.3 | 708.8 |
| LAD | 89.7 | 92.8 | 84.7 | 70.5 | 59.9 | 113.3 | 70.6 | 125.9 | 707.4 |
| CIN | 63.2 | 108.0 | 80.8 | 90.7 | 77.9 | 109.5 | 79.1 | 90.0 | 699.2 |
| HOU | 40.7 | 133.8 | 92.9 | 74.7 | 77.8 | 114.2 | 64.4 | 87.7 | 686.2 |
| SDP | 43.3 | 105.6 | 62.2 | 82.8 | 61.8 | 89.4 | 106.7 | 104.4 | 656.2 |
| SFG | 85.2 | 70.4 | 77.8 | 69.7 | 45.9 | 95.1 | 80.1 | 114.1 | 638.3 |
| WAS | 55.1 | 84.6 | 67.9 | 82.5 | 103.4 | 62.4 | 83.9 | 82.1 | 621.9 |
Using ESPN’s latest numbers (they have a slight discrepancy from when we last ran them), the Cardinals created the second-most runs in the league, behind only Colorado (led by erstwhile leftfielder Matt Holliday).
An easier way to look at it is to compare the Cardinals with league average:
| C | 1B | 2B | 3B | SS | LF | CF | RF | Total | OF | CI | MI | |
| NL | 72.2 | 104.0 | 87.7 | 90.3 | 86.1 | 100.9 | 93.5 | 95.7 | 730.3 | 290.1 | 194.3 | 173.7 |
| STL | 71.7 | 146.4 | 87.8 | 104.2 | 63.8 | 92.1 | 111.1 | 123.9 | 801.0 | 327.1 | 250.6 | 151.6 |
The Cardinals were outstanding in right- and center-field, above-average at third base, and, well, Albert Pujols outpaced every NL team’s total production at first base — by himself. Their catcher production was average (and might’ve been better, if Yadier Molina had played more), and, oddly enough, their cadre of second basemen was, too.
So that leaves only a couple of positions. It’s no surprise that the Cardinals were weakest at shortstop (going into the season, they knew it was their achilles heel). But, surprisingly, their leftfield hydra — with 14 different players, easily the most in the NL — also underperformed league average. So perhaps it wasn’t such a hairbrained idea to pursue Holliday, after all.
Of course, the bigger picture is that, even with their weaknesses at shortstop and left field, the offense wasn’t the problem in 2008. So if the Cardinals do want to upgrade their offense, they’ll have a shortstop and a leftfielder on their list (and perhaps a second baseman). But the more important need, as least as evidenced by their 2008 performance, is on the pitching mound.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Great analysis, as usual. I’m very surprised to learn that the second basemen for the Cards were above (barely) league average. I wonder how much of that was influenced by Felipe Lopez.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Thanks for the kind words, Mike.
I ran the numbers without Lopez: If some combination of Miles, Barden, Kennedy, Ryan, Pujols and Washington had taken Lopez’s 84 plate appearances as a second baseman, the 2B group would’ve created about 77.9 runs. So Lopez gave them 13% more RC. I think.