It is hard for you to kick against the goads. — Acts 26:14

Bernie Miklasz wrote recently that there’s no reason to give up on the Cardinals. The optimist in us is inclined to agree. The realist, however, can’t. The Cardinals and their fans can kick against the goads all they want, but a greater power — reality — will ultimately win, and the sooner they admit it, the better.

After the splash of ice water to the face of the Albert Pujols "negotiations" and the punch to the gut of Adam Wainwright’s season-ending injury, we’ve awakened to the harsh reality of the Cardinals’ world, ca. spring 2011. So we’ll go ahead and say it: The Cardinals should begin a modest rebuilding mode.

Yes, the Cardinals still have a reasonable chance to win the division and may even still be favorites. But they now could be considered to be in a "stastistical tie" with their main competitors, which means that some amount of "luck" can have an impact. But "luck" can also work in their favor: the Cardinals may be able to have their cake and eat it, too. After all, with a little bit of good fortune, rebuilding and winning the division aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. But the point is that the clear goal of going "all in" for 2011 has to change, because a significant plank on which that plan was made is now gone.

It’s a shame that they’ve lost Wainwright, and normally a team is bigger than one player, but in this case, reality needs to dictate the team’s decisions. Reality — in the form of either a painfully expensive Pujols contract or a farewell party at the end of the season, and now a lost ace — has set up camp on their doorstep; they can either open the door and gird themselves as they step out into it, or they can slam the door shut and put their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la."

Facing that reality means changing plans. The Cardinals perennially contend for the playoffs — when was the last time they began a season not intending to vie for the division? — but they probably need to take a year off and catch their breath. Their farm system is weak, their 2011 chances are dimmer (though to be sure, not erased entirely) and, if they are honest with themselves, Pujols will be out of their league come November. The team wasn’t exactly a bunch of Lou Gehrigs even before the Wainwright injury — Carpenter, Berkman, Freese and Lohse, for example — and Wainwright’s surgery should clarify that reality and push them to retool for a post-Pujols future.

What does that mean? A few options:

• Trade Chris Carpenter: Face it — the team got lucky with Carpenter staying healthy in 2010. Smart money is not on him avoiding a DL stint or two again, and he’s not long for the team after this season, anyway. If the team declines his 2012 option, they won’t be eligible for compensatory picks, anyway, so they might as well cash in via trade this season before he, too, gets hurt.
• Spend money in the draft: Kenny Williams noted that he could do a lot with $30 million, and so can the Cardinals. One thing is to spend money to make sure that they draft and sign the best possible players in June. Money shouldn’t be an obstacle in the draft, either this year or next, when they’ll have a couple extra picks via Pujols’s departure.
• Cut the old, promote the young: Rather than continue La Russa’s playoff-looking "veterans over rookies" approach, the Cardinals need to make decisions in spring training that reflect a consideration beyond 2011. That means that Daniel Descalso needs make the team over Ramon Vazquez and also-rans like Ian Snell and Miguel Batista get released. Give the youth some experience to prepare them for 2012.
• Free former prospects to play regularly: Once-and-possibly-still-promising farmhands like Bryan Anderson and Allen Craig are at the tipping point. The Cardinals need to make opportunities for them to see meaningful major-league action. The only place their trade value can go is up.

It’s hard to write and believe, especially after such a promising group for 2011. But that’s reality, and sometimes it’s painful. The world has changed for the Cardinals. It’s time they acknowledge it and change, too.

Over the weekend, we asked the United Cardinal Bloggers the following question:

Given the current roster and likely makeup of the team, what is one tactic or strategy you’d like to see Tony La Russa use in 2011? It could be from TLR’s own bag of tricks — pitchers hit eighth — or something new to him (or even baseball). It might even be player-specific (put Adam Wainwright in right field when a LOOGy comes in, then put him back on the mound).

Here’s what they had to say.

Good question, Pip. Three topics come to mind for me.

1. I’d definitely prefer that TLR keep pitchers batting eighth since research, as demonstrated by Tom Tango (author of The Book), actually supports this strategy. Since it’s only likely to benefit the team by a couple of runs per season at most, it’s nothing to fret over… but every run counts, right? I don’t understand why TLR goes back and forth on this method. If he believes that it creates more RBI opportunities for the better bats, and is aware that there is evidence to support this theory, then why ever return to the pitcher batting ninth? I don’t get it.

2. Like most (all) saber-minded fans, I’d love for TLR to do away with the notion of a closer. Instead of saving the bullpen’s best arm for non-pressure appearances (9th inning, zero on and zero out with a 3-run lead), he should be used in the highest leverage situations. Often times, that would result in the “closer” being called upon in the 7th or 8th inning.

As pointed out by Chuck Brownson at GHG, the Cardinals avoided annointing their best pitcher (Jason Motte by all indications: FIP, WAR, xFIP) with the closer tag in 2010. I’m guessing, however, that this was an unintentional decision… especially since Motte trailed Franklin and Miller in gmLI (pitcher’s average leverage index when entering game), meaning that TLR chose inferior pitchers when the game was on the line. And let’s be honest. Those of us yearning for this strategical change will have to wait until a new regime is in place since TLR and Duncan are largely regarded as two of the main proponents for modern day closer usage.

3. Lastly, I’d like to see McGwire set loose in batting coach duties. I’m intrigued by his critique of the players’ over-reliance on video. Despite the most recent P-D story from Hummel in which TLR claimed that he and McGwire are on the same page in this area, I’ll believe it when McGwire makes the same assertion and we start hearing about actual changes being made by the hitters. It certainly makes sense that hitters would benefit from developing a better knack for adjusting to pitches as they’re thrown rather than guessing outright and going “all in” on each pitch.

That’ll do it.

– Andy Beard, GasHouseGraphs

Tony La Russa makes moves such as batting the pitcher eighth because he believes it gives the Cardinals an advantage over the opponent, right? So that’s how I’m approaching this question — what’s a Tony-like move he could employ that would, in his mind, give the Cardinals an advantage?

The pitcher hitting eighth seems like a given, so no other comment on that needed.

I know I’ve read that Lance Berkman will likely be removed in the late innings in close games for defensive purposes, given his lack of playing time (to put it nicely) in the outfield in recent years. But if Berkman hits well this season, that could be an important bat removed from the lineup. So I think La Russa will definitely replace Berkman in right field late in games … but move him to third base, then move David Freese over to shortstop and take Ryan Theriot out of the game. Or, depending on who’s hitting better between Theriot and Skip Schumaker, he could also have Berkman replace Schumaker at second.

If any blowout games happen this season, of course Nick Punto will be the replacement for Aaron Miles at pitcher. I also can see Kyle Lohse playing the outfield again when a blowout or extra inning occasion arises.

And, Pip, I love the Wainwright-to-the-outfield-for-a-batter idea. That is definitely a La Russian idea!

– Christine Coleman, Aaron Miles’ Fastball

What a great question. The last few seasons in St. Louis have looked like some of those Earl Weaver teams in Baltimore in the early 70s. When the bashers hit home runs, the team won (158 in 1971). When they didn’t (100 in 1972), the team did not do well.

If there is one tactic I’d like to see Tony La Russa use this year, it is in the running game. Start runners, even in front of Albert Pujols and Matt Holliday. Manufacture scoring chances instead of standing around waiting for someone to hit the ball out of the park. This is baseball, not co-ed softball. When the baserunners start, defenders move out of position, pitchers have to shorten their delivery, and there’s one more thing to worry about.

The thing about the running game, it rarely goes in a slump. More important, good pitching cannot defeat it like it can good hitting. Several National League teams have improved their pitching staffs (Milwaukee, Philadelphia to be specific) and we need something to counter that, other than the three run homer.

Ryan Theriot and Colby Rasmus need to be running like maniacs at the top of the order. If Albert Pujols and Yadier Molina are competing for the team lead in stolen bases, it is going to be a dreadfully long season.

– Bob Netherton, On the Outside Corner

The more I think about it, this lineup may be tailor-made for hitting the pitcher eighth. TLR has several options for the second spot in the lineup; should one of them really be Skip Schumaker or Ryan Theriot? I don’t think so. They’re barely passable as leadoff hitters. But if the theory of “second leadoff hitter” truly contributes to the reason for hitting the pitcher eighth, then Schumaker and Theriot are the perfect duo to bounce around between one and nine.

I also wonder if it wouldn’t be a good idea to back off Yadier Molina’s playing time some more. I don’t know that TLR should go into a full-fledged platoon, but Gerald Laird isn’t your typical backup. He is able to handle a full season behind the plate. And Molina is, too, but for how long? His importance to this team cannot be understated (base running aside), but the wear and tear seems to be taking its toll. I don’t know what the appropriate number of starts and substitutions should be, but I’d like Laird to be used a little more often than we’ve seen Jason LaRue used over the last couple of years–not because Laird is so great…because Molina is.

–Chris, Bird Brained  

I know this is the complete opposite end of the spectrum for Tony, but I’d love for him to adopt the ‘relief ace’ philosophy instead of having the traditional 9th inning closer. Most of what I’m going to talk about in my answer Andy has already stated and I’m sure has been discussed at length by the sabermetric community so I guess I’ll do my best to elaborate and agree.

The save stat itself has never really meant much to me. Take the reliever in your pen who gives you the best opportunity to come out of a tight game with runners on and shut the door and appoint him as your relief ace to be used at any time in innings 7-9.

Example: Top of the 7th , Cardinals have a 1 run lead, 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd with the 3-5 hitters in the order coming to the plate (dramatic indeed). The relief pitcher (let’s say Jason Motte) comes into the game and shuts the door while preserving the lead. The Cardinals then extend the lead to 2 going to the 9th. Then the ‘closer’ (Franklin) comes in and gives up a run while finishing the game, but he’s still credited with the save. I’m not knocking Franklin it’s just in this example Motte was the pitcher who in my eyes actually saved the game and was absolutely the more effective of the two. Regardless the point being in this particular game the relief ace would be on the mound in the 7th and not the 9th.

The closer is typically the guy who the manager feels is his best relief pitcher. In a lot of cases (not just with the Cardinals but around the league) he sits on the bench in the bullpen and watches his bullpen mates blow a lead because he’s being held until the 9th to ‘preserve’ the game. I know this will never happen under Tony LaRussa’s watch but it’s always something that’s on my mind. Also if anyone cares my vote would be for Jason Motte to hold the relief ace role. 

– Dustin McClure

Great comments from the group. My only addition is not so much tactics on the field but strategy off it.

Should one of the 25 who break camp get hurt, I’d really like to see LaRussa NOT pressure the front office to find a veteran off the reject bin to take his place (see Randy Winn, Aaron Miles, etc). Let the FO bring a deserving guy up from the minors, then actually use him. Given LaRussa’s propensity to favor the vet over the rookie, this will probably never happen, but it would be better (in my opinion) for the overall health of the organization if some of the guys who have been trying to break through actually get a chance to break through.

–Mike, Stan Musial’s Stance

So it sounds like two votes each for hitting the pitcher eighth and for going retro with the bullpen, along with some other smart ideas. With wisdom like that, perhaps the Cardinals could implement another strategy and revisit the Cub’s "college of coaches" comprised of some UCB members. For our part, in addition to agreeing with the pitchers hit eighth tactic and retro-pen, we of course wrote recently about our preference for the four-man rotation. And we weren’t joking when we mentioned bringing back Whitey Herzog’s old trick of hiding a pitcher in right field while a LOOGy takes care of business, then bringing the pitcher back; with Berkman likely leaving in late innings, anyway, the move seems tailor-made for this year’s club.

Thanks to all of the UCB members for their help with this post.

Chris from Aaron Miles Fastball asked the following question last week:

With the Cardinals rotation set going into spring training next week, the biggest question mark for the starters is Kyle Lohse. What’s your honest assessment of how he’ll do in 2011?

Our honest assessment is that he’ll likely perform to his projections, not exactly a press-stopping revelation. And what are his projections alongside his rotation mates?

It comes as little surprise that Lohse figures to be the worst of the team’s planned five starters — a lot worse, in fact, than any of the other four. And that leads us to our near-perennial soap box: The Cardinals should go with a four-man rotation.

Yeah, yeah, we know. We beat that drum that every year around this time. But with Lohse’s projected ERA falling a whole standard deviation away from the average of the five, the cause is pretty dire:

Using a standard deviation as a cutoff is of course simply a rule of thumb and still fairly abstract. What you really want to know is how the Cardinals would actually gain from dropping Lohse out of the rotation and going with their front four. Glad you asked. You’ll have to endure some possibly-boring calculations to get the answer, though.

The premise is that the Cardinals would redistribute Lohse’s starts among Wainwright, Carpenter, Garcia and Westbrook. We’ll use the club’s recent history to determine how many that is, and on what basis to redistribute. Games started by Cardinal starting pitchers over the last 10 years (source: Baseball-reference.com):

As an aside, check out the parity in games started in 2004 and 2005!

First, let’s figure out an approximate number of runs that the rotation, with Lohse, would yield. We won’t include games that other pitches would start (26 games). Cardinals starters averaged about six innings pitched per start (6.11) in 2010, so we’ll use that as a round number to project (assuming that some starters who pitch more, like Wainwright, will balance out guys who pitch fewer, like Garcia). Then, if we figure each pitcher’s projected ERA into the mix (assuming six innings pitched per start), we get the following:

The five-man rotation then will allow around 323 runs in their 136 starts.

Next, let’s figure out how many runs the four-man rotation would allow. If we redistribute the 18 starts that Lohse as the fifth starter might otherwise take in 2011 and give them to the front four starters in the same proportion in which the team’s top four pitchers have started over the last 10 years, the distribution of starts would look like this:

Using the same ERA projections and six-innings-per-start assumption, we get the following runs allowed:

The four-man rotation would allow only 305 runs, a difference of 18 runs, or about two wins. In a tighter NL Central, that’s a significant number, merely for reworking how existing personnel are used.

Of course, it may not come entirely for free. Adam Wainwright is in the prime of his career, but he has never started 38 games in a season. Chris Carpenter is capable of starting 36, but the smart money is not on him staying healthy this year. On the other hand, we’re really only talking about a couple additional starts, and we have yet to see any research that leads us to believe that occasional shorter rest or an extra start would kill either one (and have seen some to the contrary). And though Jaime Garcia is obviously a precious resource, increasing his workload may not lead to the dire consequences that some fear (see JC Bradbury’s work on the so-called "Verducci effect"). And Jake Westbrook shouldn’t have any problem with 27 starts.

La Runcan can also mitigate any deleterious effects of the additional workload by pulling back on their innings per game. Pitchers generally fare worse the more times they go through the opponent’s lineup, anyway, and the bullpen would also have an unexpected asset: Lohse as reliever. Lohse, like most others, is more successful in relief, realizing at least a half-point improvement in his xFIP: 4.58 as starter, 3.86 as reliever. It would be a net gain for the ‘pen, too, rather than a replacement, since Lohse merely changes roles, effectively allowing the team to carry an additional reliever. Talk about matchup possibilities for Tony La Russa.

Moving Lohse from the rotation to the bullpen improves both, possibly yielding two additional wins for the Cardinals, for little-to-no cost. What’s not to like about a four-man rotation this year?

The deadline came and went, and we’re all still alive. Free-agent-to-be Albert Pujols shed some light on the situation; allow us to shed some on his statement.

First of all, I’d like to congratulate “The Man” Stan Musial, on receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He is a person that I have come to know and deeply admire and respect.

It’s shameful that the Pujols camp imposed its deadline on Musial’s award day and that the team had to request to push back the deadline so as to not spoil it. As Mike Metzger noted, the Medal of Freedom ceremony was planned a long time before Pujolzano’s deadline. If Pujols esteemed Musial as much as he claims, he would have avoided the conflict.

After spending the last few weeks working toward an extension, we’ve suspended our conversations with the Cardinals, due to this morning’s self-imposed deadline. Once the 2011 season is over, we hope to revisit those talks.

The Pujols negotiations have hamstrung the Cardinals long enough, so now that they’ve ended, the Cardinals should now devote their full attention to Plan B. If Pujols wants to "revisit" talks after the season, let him propose something. The threat of being extorted all winter, then crushed under the weight of a contract that they can’t afford is a burden off the organization’s shoulders, and the Cardinals should take advantage of it, not stopping to look the gift horse in the mouth. As J-Doug notes on Beyond the Boxscore, the question facing the team going forward is "Can the St. Louis Cardinals get a better return on investment by spending $xxx million on Albert Pujols than on anything else over the term of the contract?” We trust that the Cardinals will be able to do a lot with $300 million over the next 10 years, starting with paying slot value for two first-round draft picks in 2012.

My agent, Dan Lozano and I have been on the same page throughout this entire process, and we strongly feel this is the best course of action.

And what page is that? It appears that Pujolzano cynically set the deadline in the first place with no real eye toward resolution but merely a setup for free agency, and were only "in talks" with the Cardinals on the off-chance that the team would overbid against itself before that time came. Come to think of it, the Cardinals have been eyeing Pujols heading toward free agency, too, for the same reason.

Now that the deadline has come and gone, it’s time to be honest and forthright about what Pujols wants, as Jeff Passan suggests. A welcome side effect will be that all the speculating about how much Pujols is demanding and what he turned down will be put to rest.

I have made it very clear that I do not want any of this to be a distraction during the season, and it was for that reason, that we came up with a deadline. I hope that the media are respectful toward my family, my teammates, coaches and the Cardinals Organization in honoring this request.

Sorry, man. The only way for this not to be a distraction during the season was for you to have agreed to a contract extension. Until that happens, the caterwauling will only grow louder, and ironically all the more so each time you publicly decry it happening. Besides, it’s hard to take Pujols seriously. After all, he was the one who lit the kindling by imposing the deadline. Why not simply say from the outset that you’re waiting until free agency? You could’ve at least spared us the spectacle of the last month or so.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. DeWitt, Mo and the rest of the Cardinals Organization, and the path that these negotiations have taken, will not impact our relationship moving forward in any way.

We have a lot of respect for them, too, Albert, not in least part because the organization appears to have learned its lesson not to bid against itself, as it did for the Kyle Lohse and Matt Holliday contracts. It’s both fortunate and unfortunate that the lesson comes for the Pujols contract talks. We’re proud of Mozeliak and Dewitt sticking to the guns and doing what was right for the team. After the Lohse and Holliday money drops, it’s reassuring that the organization can still see its priorities clearly. Undoubtedly, staring down Pujolzano was a difficult task, but they stood up under the pressure. Albert Pujols may be a St. Louis institution, but not as big as the Cardinals are.

I also would like to take this opportunity to reassure the Cardinal Nation, that my effort both on and off the field will never change.

Forgive us if Pujols’s "reassurance" doesn’t carry as much gravitas as it once did. If it’s true that Pujols rejected an offer worth at least $200 million, it’s clear that he was disingenuous when he once proclaimed that it wasn’t about the money. We don’t begrudge a man trying to get max out his earnings. But he has to deal with the consequences of disrespecting fans by going back on his word.

I am devoted to giving 100 percent on the field, every single day, just as I have done the last 10 years.

Now that Pujols has effectively ended the contractual obligation between himself and the team beyond this year, his sometimes-injured elbow may become a pivotal and potentially contentious issue. Will he still be jumping onto the tarp roll for foul balls and playing through elbow pain? By forgoing a contract extension, he puts a lot of pressure on himself this year, not to perform, but to stay healthy. That may be at odds with how he has played every day the last 10 years.

We’re all working together toward a common goal and that is to win a World Championship for the City of St. Louis.

We appreciate the carefully parsed phrasing here. A common goal is one that is shared by multiple parties. But it doesn’t mean it’s the highest-priority goal for all parties. Does Pujols want to win a championship in St. Louis? Of course. Does it mean that he has the same best interests of the team as Dewitt and Mozeliak? Of course not.

The last thing anyone in this clubhouse needs to worry about, is what’s going to happen to me after the season. Let’s focus on winning in 2011 and prepare each day to accomplish our goals as a team. I’m feeling strong, healthy and excited to be at Spring Training in what I hope to be the start of a World Championship season.

At the end of the day, if a player turns down $200 million to play for you, isn’t it pretty clear that staying with you isn’t really his highest priority? We agree with Pujols: It’s the last thing the team needs to worry about. It’s time to move on and part amicably.

I can’t wait to get started and God bless.

The public-relations machinations around this (and, to be fair, many other high-level contract talks) already resemble politician-speak without the "God bless" salutation. And if you’re going to use it, at least put some meaning behind it and supply a direct object, rather than the mealy-mouthed ambiguous construction. Unless of course the direct object for Albert is "me."

As Cardinal fans anxiously await any news of Albert Pujols signing, it’s worth looking into a particular argument being made by proponents of signing The Mang: The Cardinals won’t be able to be a playoff team without Albert Pujols. Is that really true?

Let’s assume that Albert Pujols is the best player in the league and will be for the remainder of his contract. Using WAR data from Baseball-Reference. com, we can determine the correspondence of the teams with the best player in each league and the teams that make the playoffs. Over the last 10 years, here’s the correspondence:

Of the 20 opportunities (two leagues, 10 years), the team with the league’s best player went to the playoffs eight times, or 40% of the time.

Being of the mindset that the playoffs are a crapshoot, and that anything that happens after you make it there, well, we’re not sure you can draw any useful conclusions beyond merely using the data of playoff teams. But some who are making the claim about needing Pujols are obviously using success in the playoffs as a point, so we’ll go ahead and look at correspondence with league pennant winners and World Champions. First, the pennant winners:

Two in 20, for a 10% rate. And among the teams who won the World Series:

As Providence would have it, only one of the World Series winners in the last 10 years had the best player in its league — and it was Albert Pujols. Still, a one-in-10 rate doesn’t make a very convincing argument.

So, at best, the argument that the Cardinals need Pujols to remain competitive is demonstrably half-true, or 40% true (and that assumes that he’ll continue to be the best player in the league). Another way to put it — one might say, a more objective way — is that 60% of the playoff teams in the last 10 years made it without having their league’s best player. And, for those who are inclined to think that World Series success is somehow predictable beyond simply being in the playoffs, nine of the last ten world champs won without their league’s best player. That’s not to say that Albert Pujols won’t be a tremendous advantage in reaching the playoffs, especially over the next three or four years, but he’s certainly not necessary.