Baseball Cardinals Offseason Ramblings

I've been meaning to do this for a month, but I've been too lazy, and it's not as though anyone's clamoring for it. The Cardinals have a bunch of free agents, and a considerable amount of payroll space. Problem is, there's not a lot of players out there that appear to be worth spending money. For now, I'm gonna look solely at the Cardinals free agents.

Three of the starting pitchers are available to be re-signed: Pineiro, Wellenmeyer, and Smoltz. They already have a lot of money invested in Carpenter and Lohse, and Wainwright's going to make something like 6 or 7 million next year as well. There are a few guys that could be called up to fill a spot, including Blake Hawksworth, Mitch Boggs, Jaime Garcia, PJ Walters, and perhaps Kyle McClellan (though considering Kyle walks too many guys for a reliever, making him a starter seems ill-advised).

First off, tell Wellenmeyer "Thanks for the surprisingly good 2008, now get lost". Whatever he did to stop walking people that year, he couldn't do this season, and I wouldn't count on him figuring it out again. I'd like to see them offer Smoltz a one-year contract, and he might go for it. He said he liked the atmosphere playing in St. Louis more than he ever did in Atlanta*, which might make him receptive to that. Added bonus is that if Smoltz can't hold up in the rotation, you can easily shift him back to the bullpen. He could even take over for Franklin as closer if that fellow continues the regression we saw the last couple months of the season.

As for Joel, I wouldn't offer him more than arbitration. Given the weak free agent class, he'll probably get better offers than that, but this season is pretty far out of line from his career norms. He had his success by pitching like someone out of the Dead Ball Era**, and the other players in the last 80 years to pitch that way a whole year, were only able to do it for season. Keeping the BB and HR rates that low, while striking no one out is just too tricky these days. So I expect serious regression. If he accepts arbitration, hopefully he can at least pitch better than he did in 2008. If not, well at least it's only a 1-year deal. If he doesn't accept arbitration, sweet, draft pick!

So for me, I'd like to slot Smoltz in the #4 spot, and Garcia in the #5 spot, get that draft pick for Joel, and forget about Wellenmeyer.

No free agents from the 'pen, since everyone's either already re-signed, or still under team control. Amongst the position players, there's LaRue, Khalil Greene, DeRosa, Glaus, Holliday, and Ankiel. First things first, Greene and Ankiel can take a hike. I'm ambivalent at LaRue. If the Cardinals think either Bryan Anderson or Matt Pagnozzi can be roughly as good as LaRue, then let him walk, and let one of those guys try. If Yadier's healthy, then the backup catcher's hardly going to play anyway, and if Yadi's hurt, the Cardinals are in trouble whether LaRue or one of the newbies is the backup. Hardly matters.

Between DeRosa and Glaus, I don't know. Glaus is still going to be recovering from that shoulder surgery. DeRosa has, I believe, already had his wrist surgery, but he's still going to be recovering from that. DeRosa's a couple years older. Glaus has a more extensive injury history. DeRosa has greater versatility, but Glaus is the better 3rd baseman, and the better all around player if healthy. Crap, I dunno. I'd like to see David Freese get a shot at 3rd, although Chone Figgins is appealing*** . I really don't want DeRosa to be starting at 3rd. If there's a set of figures that would be appropriate for a "super-sub" (2 years, 14 million? I have no idea, I'm just guessing), I'd be open to giving DeRosa that, let him get some time all over the diamond. As for Glaus, arbitration, since they can get a draft pick for him too if he leaves.

As for Holliday, I don't think he's coming back. Scott Boras doesn't believe in "hometown discounts", and he's definitely not buying into any talk of St. Louis being a small or mid-market team. Which means the Cards would have to match the likely ludicrous offers Holliday's going to wrangle from the Mets, Yanks, Red Sox, whoever. I do not want them to do that, so to hell with him. Offer arbitration, when he declines, move on. Look into Mike Cameron. He plays an excellent CF, so LF ought to be a snap. Plus, he can hit lefties, so if you want to platoon someone with Colby Rasmus, there's your guy (I wouldn't go for that myself. If Rasmus is going to be your franchise centerfielder, then he's gonna have to learn to hit lefties). Beyond that, I was thinking of a few other possibilities, maybe Reed Johnson. He platooned with Edmonds, and can also play center. Admittedly, not much power, but if we had say, a healthy Glaus, and Ludwick, and Rasmus can improve, that might be enough power around Pujols.

* Which, hey I appreciate hearing the fans made a good impression, but that has to hurt if you're a Braves fan. Admittedly, the fans don't help by being so indifferent to their team's success, but there were surely some good fans that were consistently supportive, and that kind of spits in their face. Probably not his intent, but I could see that hurting some feelings.

** Really, unsustainably low strikeout, walk, and HR totals.

*** His high on-base percentage and Schumaker's at the front of the lineup and Albert might have some people to drive in. Of course, Albert might get walked 150 times depending on who's behind him, but hopefully other managers would nut up a bit.

Arizona Keeps Things Interesting

Last year they couldn't win on the road. Now they can't win at home. They can go to Jersey and beat a Giants team that looked at least decent, and figured to be pissed off after the Saints rolled over them. Then they make fools out of themselves against the Panthers. They couldn't even intercept Jake Delhomme. If that guy tried to pass on a cold it'd be intercepted.

Wait, does that make any sense?

Then they travel to Chicago and curbstomp the Bears. Whisenhunt even makes an amusing Dennis Green reference* afterward. Admittedly, the Bears aren't an elite team, and they lost Tommie Harris about one minute into the game, but the Cardinals' offense made it look easy. They even ran the ball successfully! It's troubled me that the running game has been even weaker this year than it was last year, which is saying something, but maybe it's starting to wake up. I don't watch college football, so I know little about Chris "Beanie" Wells, but I like him. I'm hoping he'll be a running back the Cardinals draft that actually works out for them**.

I just can't figure out this team. Losing to the Colts, sure I can understand that, the Colts are really good (and the Cardinals seemed to have a poor gameplan. Why throw a lot against a team with really good pass-rushing ends?) Losing to the 49ers in Arizona, that one I couldn't figure. It wasn't as though Frank Gore tore them up, they just couldn't get the job done. So at this point, I'm definitely concerned about this game against Seattle. The Cardinals dominated the Seahawks a few weeks ago in Seattle, and I have to figure the Seahawks will be looking to repay the favor. And they wouldn't be the Arizona Cardinals if they didn't periodically blow games they ought to win.

On the upside, in the old days they alternated losing games they shouldn't with almost, but not actually, winning games they had no business winning. Now they actually win those games. Sometimes. Progress.

I'm being too negative, I know. I ought to be happy, and I am, really. Any time the Arizona Cardinals win it makes me happy, especially when it's a convincing win, though I'll take any kind of victory. Still it's hard for me to shake those fears that anytime now, they're going to go in the toilet, the way they used to whenever they showed promise. Warner will get hurt, or this Boldin*** situation will actually start to disrupt things, or the pass defense will completely disintegrate, and the next thing you know, six-game losing streak. I think they're too good for that to happen (plus they have several games left against lousy divisional opponents), but I still worry.

* Bill Plaschke thinks it was in poor taste. Of course he does. I can't say I was eager to be reminded of that Monday Night Football debacle, but since it was bound to happen anyway, given it was Cardinals/Bears, and the Bears tried to mount a comeback, I'm glad I could get a laugh out of it. Plaschke, lighten up. Or alternatively, go away. You contribute nothing useful to any dialogue.

** As opposed to the ones that go somewhere else to succeed, like Thomas Jones or Garrison Hearst. or Michael Pittman. Or the ones that just don't work out, like Leeland McElroy or J.J. Arrington.

*** I appreciate how badly Boldin wants to play, but I wish he wouldn't air this stuff so publicly. Honestly, I don't believe he's a malcontent, or trying to cause trouble. I think he just believes in speaking plainly. You ask how he feels about not playing, he tells you outright it wasn't his call, and he didn't like it. I can respect that, but it bothers me that he seems to be getting a bad reputation with the sportswriters around the league, all of them painting him as a "me first, I want my stats" troublemaker type, when I think he just really wants to play. Maybe they're right, but I hope Boldin proves them wrong. The man came back from a busted face in two weeks. They had to insert metal plates in his face under the skin and he came back that fast. I have a hard time believing that guy is a cancer.

They Have Successfully Lowered My Expectations

So perhaps one good thing came out of the Cardinals stinking up the joint the last three weeks of the regular season. And if that was their goal, they were certainly diligent at achieving it. They lost series to good teams (Rockies, Braves, Marlins), and lousy teams (Reds, freaking swept by the Brewers). They lost by short-circuited offense, defensive buffoonery, games where their good starters got hammered*, and a pile of bullpen failures, by just about everyone available.

So you could say I'm concerned. Concerned to the point I really just want them to win one game. Avoid the sweep, and I'll, well, I won't be happy, but I won't be embarrassed. It's the same attitude I took to the 2006 postseason, where my idea was that after the Cardinals won NLDS Game 1 against San Diego, everything else was cake.

The trick, is, as much as I want to not let my hopes rise, I know they will. They did in '06. Even after they'd won that one game, even after they made it to the NLCS, I found myself troubled by the idea the Cards might get bounced by the fucking Mets. To hell with my promise to myself to be satisfied with whatever happened, they can't lose to the Mets! If the Cardinals win Game 1 tonight against the Dodgers, I'm going to find myself thinking bigger. Not about the World Series, or even winning the NLCS, but I'm sure it'll produce some subtle shift in me to where I'll be disappointed if they didn't end up moving on in the playoffs. That's the struggle of a fan, I suppose, between my wild-eyes hopes and dreams (2 World Series championships in 4 years?! Team of the Decade**!) and my more realistic expectations (The Dodgers' bullpen is much stronger than the Cardinals', the Cards' lineup has lots of holes, Molina's banged up. . .)

* See Carpenter's start versus Atlanta, and yeah, everybody's entitled to a bad start now and then, but it would have been nice to say "With all the other crap, at least Carp's holding steady".

** And if (IF) the Cardinals could pull that off, I'd call them Team of the Decade, and Rob Neyer can fuck off with his "National league Team of the Decade" crap. Goddamn Royals' fan.

Two Concerns As The Cardinals Approach The Playoffs

The end of the season is nearly upon us, and barring an absolutely ridiculous collapse, the St. Louis Cardinals are in the postseason. Who they'll play to start off is up in the air. I'd like to avoid the Phillies for as long as possible, and hope for one of the other teams to take them out, which would seem to leave either the Dodgers or the Rockies. Regardless, there are a couple of things about the team that worry me as they move forward.

First, the righthanded relief pitching, because they don't have any I feel confident in. Franklin's regressing to his career norms. McClellan walks a batter every other innings, and doesn't strike out nearly enough to make up for that. Motte has only one reliable pitch, and yeah, it's a really nice fastball, but eventually, good major league hitters (like the one faced in the postseason) are going to time that fastball and send it flying. Brad Thompson's a mop-up duty pitcher. Mitch Boggs' control is too shaky. Supposedly, Smoltz will wind up in the 'pen in the playoffs (assuming Lohse can demonstrate sufficient competence to stick as the #4 starter), but I'm concerned about betting the farm on him, what with the age, and various repairs he's had on that arm over the years.

Then there's the streaky offense. Certainly the additions of Holliday, Lugo and DeRosa have helped. The upgrade from the Duncan/Ankiel debacle to Holliday is massive, and unlike Schumaker, Lugo can hit lefties a little, and DeRosa, well, he's better than Joe Thurston at least. Still, the lineup's not exactly fearsome. Amongst starters, they have one phenomenal hitter (Albert Pujols), one very good/great hitter (Holliday, cooling off from his torrid start), two slightly better than average hitters (Schumaker, Ludwick), and everyone else (DeRosa, Ryan, Rasmus, Molina) is slightly below average. They don't draw many walks, evidenced by their being 9th in OBP even though they're 5th in batting average. They don't have much speed, and power is restricted to a few hitters: Pujols, Holliday, maybe Ludwick, plus Rasmus and DeRosa if the last two can make contact.

Even with all the additions, the Cards have been shutout 5 times in the 55 games since Holliday arrived (they were only shutout 5 times in the first 98 games). They've scored one run twice in that span (and actually won one of those games). They've scored only two runs 6 times (and managed to win half of those). So even with an improved lineup, they've been held to fewer than 3 runs about every five games. For the record, they're 8-5 in that span when they score just 3 runs. So in 55 games, that's 26 where they couldn't plate four runs. Yes, during that time they've played two series against the Dodgers, they've played the Phillies, Braves, and Marlins, and those teams are all at least winning clubs. But they've also played plenty of games against poor teams like their NL Central rivals, and even those squads have been able to shut them down occasionally. I worry that the offense is too sporadic, and it's going to place too much pressure on the pitchers to be perfect.

But maybe the offense will go on an extended scoring binge once the playoffs start. Or maybe the starting pitching will be perfect, or nearly so. That'd be nice.

John Smoltz? Eh, Why Not

So now the Cardinals went and signed John Smoltz, and they're even going to put him in the rotation, rather than in the bullpen. I suppose financially there's no real risk, and the team seems to have a sufficient lead to hold onto the division, and even if Smoltz bombs in his starts, the front of the rotation (Carpenter, Wainwright, Pineiro) ought to be able to keep the team from going into any extended losing streaks.

Of course, Smoltz has been really lousy this year. The upshots are a) his lousiness only covers 40 innings, so maybe it's just a small sample size and he'll straighten things out, and b) he was in the American League East, facing much tougher offensive opposition than he will now. His first three starts for the Cardinals are against the Padres, Nationals, and Pirates. Two of those teams are in the bottom 4 in runs per game in the NL, so about the only way Smoltz could have it easier was if he faced San Francisco. Or the Reds.

Let's see, other positives. Smoltz has been pretty solid against right handed hitters (.649 OPS), though that's only 85 PAs. Unfortunately, lefties are killing him (1.248 OPS), though that's only 101 PAs. So in one case I have to hope the small sample means something, and with the other I have to hope it doesn't.

One positive for Smoltz is that the bar he has to hurdle as the #5 starter is pretty damn low.

Todd Wellenmeyer made 20 starts, totaling 110 innings (5.5 innings/start), surrendered 71 earned runs (5.81 ERA), 47 walks, and only 71 Ks.

Brad Thompson made 8 starts, totaling 43 innings (5.375 innings/start), surrendered 28 earned runs (5.86 ERA), walked 15, struck out 16.

Mitch Boggs made 7 starts, totaling 35.1 innings (5.047 innings/start), surrendered 18 earned runs (4.58 ERA), walked 22, K'd 31.

So all Smoltz has to do is be less terrible than those three, and he's doing fine. And in theory, I believe the Cardinals plan on making him a setup guy if/when the playoffs roll around, and so this will serve more to help him get in sync, and maybe help him figure out how to retire hitters from either side of the plate. Ultimately, the Cardinals can probably afford to give him a few starts now if it helps convince him to shore up their bullpen later. If they can make that happen.

Team-Building Exercise, Take 2

Back in April and May I did that 4-post series where I tried to compile a top-notch St. Louis Cardinals team while taking one player from each season. As I was going through it, I started to get the impression I probably could have put a better group together, so I fiddled around with it a bit over the summer and came up with this second group. So I'm going to compare them more or less side-by-side, using WARP3 as a comparative stat. As I understand it, WARP3 is adjusted so you can compare players from different eras, stadiums, leagues, etc.

Rotation:

Version 1 - John Tudor (1985 - 8), Chris Carpenter (2005 - 6.6), Bob Tewksbury (1992 - 5.7), Darryl Kile (2001 - 5.2), Joe Magrane (1989 - 4.8) = 30.3 WAR

Version 2 - Tudor (1985 - 8), Chris Carpenter (2005 - 6.6), Bob Tewksbury (1992 - 5.7), Darryl Kile (2001 - 5.2), Matt Morris (1997 - 4.8) = 30.3 WAR

Comments - It's a draw, but I felt pretty good about the rotation, so I didn't see much reason to screw around with it.

Bullpen:

Version 1 -Rickey Horton (1986 - 3.5), Ken Dayley (1990 - 1.5), Mike Perez (1993 - 3), Rob Murphy (1994 - 2), Tom Henke (1995 - 6.3), Rich Croushore (1999 - ?), Dave Veres (2002 - 1.4) = 17.7

Version 2 - Horton (1986 - 3.5), Dayley (1987 - 1.7), Perez (1993 - 3), Henke (1995 - 6.3), Croushore (1999 - ?), Veres (2002 - 1.4) = 15.9

Comments - Cost myself 1.8 wins, but that's mostly because I cut the bullpen down to 6 guys instead of 7, which let me add a sixth player to the bench. Yeah, I still don't know how much Croushore would be worth, but since he's on both teams, it doesn't really matter. Did get a slightly better version of Ken Dayley, so on average, each reliever is worth slightly more than they were in the first go-round.

Bench:

Version 1 - Jose Oquendo (1988 - 2.9), Eduardo Perez (2000 - 0.5), Yadier Molina (2004 - 0.9), Ryan Ludwick (2007 - 1.6), Brian Barton (2008 - 0.8) = 6.7

Version 2 - Rex Hudler (1990 - 1.9), Gerald Perry (1994 - 1.3), Tom Lampkin (1998 - 0.4), Perez (2003 - 1.3), Scott Spiezio (2006 - 2.6), Barton (2008 - 0.8) = 8.3

Comments - Lots of changes here, which reflect a change in my strategy. Namely, get the best seasons you can for your starters (while making allowances for my biases), and fill in the bench with the best you can find from what's left. At any rate, I gained 1.6 wins. The average bench guy on Version 2 is worth 1.38 WARs, while on Version 1 it was 1.34. So it's not a big difference, and it doesn't even make up for what I lost in the 'pen, but it'll show dividends in the starting lineup.

Starting Lineup:

Version 1 - Tom Pagnozzi (1991 - 4.8), Albert Pujols (2006 - 9.3), Delino DeShields (1997 - 3.3), Scott Rolen (2003 - 8.5), Ozzie Smith (1987 - 8), Ron Gant (1996 - 3.8), Willie McGee (1984 - 4.3), Brian Jordan (1998 - 4.7) = 46.7

Version 2 - Tony Pena (1988 - 4.7), Albert Pujols (2007 - 11.5), Jose Oquendo (1989 - 6.2), Scott Rolen (2004 - 11.6), Ozzie Smith (1991 - 8.5), Ray Lankford (2000 - 2), Willie McGee (1984 - 4.3) Brian Jordan (1996 - 5.7) = 54.5

Comments - There's the payoff. I ended up a little weaker at left field, but I picked up at least 2 wins at first, second, and third base, and another win in right field.

All told, Version 1 was worth 101.4 WAR, and Version 2, 109, so if I was trying to build a better team, mission accomplished. I'm sure it's not the best team possible. That would probably require '98-'99 McGwire at first, '02-'03 Albert in LF, '08 Ludwick in RF, '00-'04 Edmonds (maybe '92-'98 Lankford) in CF, and possibly '03 Renteria at SS, but this is my team, so none of those things are terribly likely to happen.

A Melancholy Post

My father called me today to let me know that one of his colleagues at the high school, Mr. Morris, had passed away suddenly.

Though it was shocking, and certainly bad news, I can't say I was deeply saddened. Even though Mr. Morris was one of my favorite teachers in high school, I hadn't thought much about him in the last several years. I had seen him a few times since graduation, because I would visit the high school to say hello to my dad, or during the summer, to help Dad inventory textbooks and get them stored safely beyond the reach of the summer school kids. I'd see Mr. Morris, we'd say hello to each other, he might ask what I was up to, I'd do the same, and that was it. Still, his passing has had me thinking about a few things.

My own mortality for one, though I find myself thinking about that more all the time. usually though it's because I'm getting older, and I still haven't locked down a permanent job in my field, and so I feel like a bum. Now I'm thinking about how the way I've lived my life over the years may be starting to add up, and what could be going on inside. There's also my dad to consider. He's older than Mr. Morris, and Mr. Morris passed away of a heart attack, so it makes me worry for my dad. He's had health issues in the past, though they've mostly been back-related, but the family does have history of circulatory issues. My grandfather died of a stroke, I believe, or a heart attack, and my uncle had two aneurysms, the second having killed him. I think my father's taken better care of himself than those two, certainly smoked and drank less, but the concern is still there for me.

The other thing I've been trying to do is remember some good memories with Mr. Morris. I remember than in 10th grade, he was a student teacher in my biology class, and taught the organismal and ecological biology sections of the class. I know I considered him a godsend compared to the regular teacher, who could be friendly before class, but was very unpleasant once the bell rang. His more pleasant demeanor, combined with his teaching parts of biology I was actual interested in, is probably what kept me from losing interest in biology.

The next year he was a full-fledged teacher, and he even had his own class, Astronomy/Earth Processes, and I was part of his first class. It was the only science class I took in high school I actually enjoyed. Mr. Morris didn't try and be the cool teacher, but he wasn't a hardass when it wasn't required. He seemed to know how to strike that balance between being understanding when it was called for, and not putting up with malarkey when people screwing around.

You could tell he was still learning, though. The class was supposed to be split evenly between Astronomy and Earth Processes, but we didn't wrap up astronomy until late in the 3rd quarter, at the earliest. Also, since he was teaching the astronomy section in the school's planetarium, he wanted to take advantage of the resource. So the big project was to work in pairs and create a presentation which would tell a myth surrounding some constellations, but also describe some astronomical features (so my partner Gavin and I covered Scorpio and Orion, and nebulae and globular clusters, since those were present in the two constellations). You had to decide on the topics, seek out the slides that would go in the projector, and program the computer so that the slides would appear in the proper order, and for the proper amount of time. I know ours was a struggle because Gavin was MIA for weeks at a time, and it took me a long time to figure out how to set up the program (I had always thought Gavin was really sick, but in talking to him during a chance meeting years later, he told me he had just been skipping school and getting drunk. Huh.)

The problem was (in addition to probably giving us too much time, so students tended to dick around and chat, waiting until the last minute), Morris let the students grade each other, in addition to grading them himself. As far as I know, all the students gave each other "A"s. It was probably done at least partially so the we'd have to pay attention during the shows, but it wasn't really effective for helping to evaluate the presentations. Still, he was learning, and the desire was there, and I looked forward to that class more than any other I had that year. Maybe more than any class I had any year of high school.

Betting It All On This Season

Remember how yesterday I said I'd take advantage of the trade for Lugo to shift Schumaker back to LF? Well, scratch that I guess, now that the Cardinals have traded three prospects of varying quality for Matt Holliday, plus $1.5 million in cash. I read that Holliday is still owed $6 million for the remainder of the season, so I guess that means the Cardinals will pay him $4.5 mil.

Before we advance, I have to admit a bias. I'm of the opinion that no team should ever trade with Billy Beane. A lot of that is the way the Mulder for Haren/Daric Barton/Kiko Calero trade turned out, what with Haren becoming one of the best pitchers in the league, while Mulder's shoulder was busy disintegrating. Even so, it seemed like for a while there, any team that traded with Beane got the short end of the stick. The player they wanted either broke down or wasn't as good as they appeared, while Beane seemed to always pick players who flourished in Oakland. I'm sure that's a gross oversimplification, but it's how I feel, and so on that basis alone, I wouldn't have made this deal, simply because I wouldn't be able to shake the feeling Billy Beane was pulling the wool over my eyes.

So what to make of the trade? Well, it seems to be a sign of the Cards making a clear declaration that they want to win this year. Between this and the DeRosa and Lugo trades, they Cardinals have surrendered 7 players (two of which are yet to be determined), for three veterans, two of which (DeRosa and Holliday) are free agents after the season. Holliday seems especially unlikely to resign, considering he's a Boras client, who will surely try to start a bidding war for Holliday, and it's unlikely the Cardinals would win that bidding war, and I think he'll either land with a team with a large payroll, or a bad team with a small payroll trying to make that one big signing that shows their fans how hard they're trying. I don't think the Cardinals fit either description, so I think Holliday's stay in St. Louis will be about two months. Three, if they make it to the World Series.

What of Holliday the player? He seems to be strictly a leftfielder, which is fine, that's what the Cardinals need. Even though his numbers this year are down from his production during his Colorado years, they're still easily superior to the Duncan/Ankiel combo the team had been trotting out there. Essentially, the team seems to have have added another Ryan Ludwick to the lineup. Maybe a little better offensively, but with less defensive versatility, though Holliday is apparently quite a good leftfielder, which is nice. While his years in the National league always showed a significant home/road split, with Holliday unsurprisingly hitting better at Coors Field, he did improve his road OPS every year of his stint there, from .654 in 2004, up to .892 in 2008. So he's not wholly a product of the Coors Effect, he really is a good, sometimes very good hitter. The Cardinals' lineup can certainly use more of those.

So figure Holliday in LF, with Ankiel as the 4th outfielder (hopefully LaRussa won't do something stupid like start playing Ankiel ahead of Rasmus), and Lugo as a utility infielder, who maybe starts at SS against LHP, with Ryan playing 2B and Schumaker sitting out. Everyone else remains in the positions I described yesterday.

Of course, we still have to consider what StL gave up. Petersen seemed to be a fringe outfielder, maybe a 4th outfielder, though he was demonstrating some ability to get on-base, but the farm system does not seem to have shortage of backup outfield types (it's finding starters that seems to be the trick). Mortensen projects to a mid-to-back of the rotation guy, at best, the sort of groundball reliant pitcher LaRussa and Duncan are so fond of. Not hugely important, but if he could have reached that potential, a cheap #3 starter is useful, if for no other reason that he frees up money to sign a more expensive front of the rotation guy.

Then there's Brett Wallace. He hasn't exactly lit it up at AAA this year, but he's still only 22 (that's young for a prospective 3rd baseman, right?), and he's shown some power and some ability to draw walks (though it seems to have declined as he's moved up the system, but it's still there a little). The major concern is whether he can actually play third, and the jury is out on that score. There are worries that he's kind of fat, but that may be something more intensive weight training in the off-season could alleviate. If he could man third for years to come, this is probably a very bad trade, since 3rd is going to be a point of concern for the Cards in the future. Glaus is a free agent at the end of the season, and given his injury history I'm not chomping at the bit to bring him back (certainly not for anything near the $12 mil head made this year). I'm not enamored with the idea of DeRosa being resigned as the starting 3B either. Super-utility guy, like an Oquendo with (much) more power? Sure, but not as a starting 3B.

The upside is the Cards have two other potential options in the minors, David Freese and Allan Craig. Freese has been hurt most of the season, so the jury is out on him as well, and Craig, who has hit roughly a little better at AAA than Wallace (though Craig is two years older), has spent more time at 1B and LF than 3B. Whether that was so the organization could see if Wallace could hack it there, or is some indictment of Craig's defense, I don't know.

Ultimately, it's probably not a bad trade for the A's. They can surely get some use out of at least one of the three players they received, and I'd imagine they were less likely to resign Holliday than I imagine the Cardinals to be. As for the Cardinals, this is one of those clasic "mortgaging the future" trades, so the Cardinals better make sure it's worth it. Now for me, I can tolerate watching a losing team for a few years*, but it helps if it's an interesting team, say one with a lot of young guys trying to figure things out, but showing glimpses of the future**. Watching a bunch of old, overpaid guys wither away in front of my eyes, is not nearly as easy to handle***. If I'm going to sit through that, I need something pleasant to hold onto as a reminder it's worth it. With the 2007 Cardinals, there was the memory of the '06 World Series. So basically, what I'm saying is, if the Cardinals don't win the Series this year, I'll consider the trade a failure****.

* Arizona Cardinals fan remember? I've developed a bit of a resistance to endless losing. Not I said only a bit of resistance. It still isn't a pleasant experience.

** Kind of what the early 90s Cardinals were.

*** That's more similar to the 2007 Cardinals, though it was a little better later in the year when guys like Ludwick and Ryan started getting opportunities. They weren't kids, but they were pretty new to the majors, and fighting for jobs, so it helped.

**** Caveat: If they buck my expectations and retain Holliday, then win a World Series in subsequent years, the trade will also be OK.

Addition By Subtraction, I'd Say

The Cardinals make another move, trading Chris Duncan (and a Player To Be Named Later) to Boston for Julio Lugo. Even better, the Red Sox agreed to pay pretty much all of the $13 million Lugo makes this year and the next.

Like the title suggests, I'm inclined to think this improves the Cardinals simply by removing Duncan from the equation. For some reason, LaRussa insisted on playing Duncan nearly every day, even though, at the time of the trade, Chris was in a 1 for 31 slump, with 16 strikeouts over that stretch. Yet, Tony eagerly talks about how it makes him want to vomit how much the fans dump on Duncan. Even better, in that same interview, while explaining why he pinch-hit Duncan for Brendan Ryan, LaRussa turned around and dissed Ryan, describing his at-bats in the game up to then as 'futile'. No Tony, that line I mentioned of Duncan's up above, the 1-for-31, that's futile. Actually, it's beyond futile, it's hopelessly, dumbfoundingly inept.

Here's something else:

Chris Duncan's stat line this season, in 304 PAs: .227/.329/.358 (that's an OPS of .687).
Brendan Ryan's stat line, in 234 PAs: .278/.313/.370 (an OPS of .683). Yep, Duncan was certainly a vast improvement on Ryan in that situation.

And Duncan's stats are inflated by the .934 OPS he had in April, since then, he's been terrible, a worse hitter than Ryan across the board. The one and only thing Duncan still does well is draw walks, which is staggering because I can't figure how pitchers can be afraid of him. He can't make contact, and on the rare occasions he does, he doesn't have any power. He can't hurt you. Furthermore, he's a below-average leftfielder, while Brendan Ryan has been one of the best shortstops in the league this year (defensively). One can make arguments for why Ryan should play, while about the only one you could make for Duncan is there are no better options, and I think the Cardinals could find someone in AAA who can match Duncan's "production".

So, this kind of stuff from LaRussa just lends credence to the people who claim Duncan owes his career to nepotism, namely that LaRussa plays him because his dad is Tony's pitching coach. Certainly, Duncan hasn't done anything the last two years to validate receiving this much playing time. He's never hit lefties worth a damn, and now he can't even hit righties, he's no defensive whiz, so what good is he?

So that's what the Cardinals gave up (ignoring the currently unknown PTBNL). So what did they receive? Well, Lugo's a shortstop, but not a very good one, not defensively anyway. It seems as though, he could be described as marginally below average, at best. However, Lugo does seem to be a better hitter than Ryan. Going back to 2004 his on-base percentages have been .338, .362, .341 (played for both Tampa and L.A. that year), .294 (first year in Boston, not sure what happened there), .355, and .352 this year, albeit in only 123 PAs. His career average is .271 (.268 and .284 the last two seasons), so he shows a greater ability to draw walks than Ryan, which is certainly useful, as the Cardinals have distinct lack of good OBP guys in the lineup. He doesn't seem to hit for much more power than Ryan, but hopefully between Albert, Ludwick, DeRosa, and Rasmus (and maybe Ankiel, or Glaus, fingers crossed) they'd have enough power to score some runs, provided some more people can get on base.

That being said, I'd like Ryan to remain the starting SS. I know LaRussa's said that Lugo will be a utility guy until he gets a feel for him, but Tony's rarely seemed high on Ryan, so I'm worried it won't take much in terms of a slump by Ryan, or a surge by Lugo, to switch those roles. I think given the Cardinals's pitchers tendency towards groundballs, you'd want the best infield defense you could muster. Problem being, I'm not sure how good Lugo would be at 2B, as he hasn't played any significant innings there in years (you have to go back to his Houston days, and the numbers aren't pretty). So maybe the best overall would be Lugo at SS and Ryan at 2B. I would definitely take this opportunity to make Schumaker the everyday LF again, seeing as he'll be an offensive and defensive upgrade over Duncan (and Ankiel, for that matter). Use DeRosa at 3B, Albert at 1B, Yadi a C, Rasmus in CF, and Ludwick in RF, and there you go.

On the whole, I think this trade works for the Cardinals, at least in the short term. They get a fellow with a decent OBP and the ability to play middle infield, and they got rid of a major dead weight in their lineup. The possible downside is if this has soured LaRussa and Dave Duncan on working with the organization, leading to their departure this offseason, and whether that's a downside really depends on a) how high your opinion was of them, and b) who the Cardinals would replace them with, and how those folks fared.

So The Cardinals Did Something

The fans (some of them anyway) had been demanding it. I think LaRussa had been expecting it as well, and now the Cardinals went and traded for Mark DeRosa, sending Cleveland Chris Perez and a player to be named later. So, good deal, bad deal?

Well, on the plus side, one thing the Cardinals seem to have plenty of in the minors is hard throwing right-handed relief pitchers, so in trading Perez, I guess they're trading from a position of strength. Perez also hadn't been terribly effective this year, having lost some velocity, but not gained any control as a benefit. He was still walking almost six batters per nine innings, though he was also striking out over 11/9 IP. So for Cleveland, it's a matter of whether someone in their organization can help Perez sort things out. If so, then they landed themselves a young relief pitcher, with little service time in the majors, so he'll be relatively cheap for the next few years.

As for the Cardinals landing DeRosa, well, he certainly can't hurt. This is a team where there is a 408 point gap in OPS between their best hitter (Pujols, 1.173), and their 2nd best hitter (Schumaker, .765). That's just ridiculous. And pathetic. He started the season slowly, hitting .238 in April (though he drew 10 walks) but since May he's brought his average up, continued to draw some walks, and hit for some power (.500 slugging in the month of June). So they Cardinals added a hitter demonstrating patience and the ability to crush the ball. Other than Pujols, I don't think anyone else on the roster could make a similar claim*. Heck, DeRosa's 13 home runs would rank 2nd on the team, and his 29 walks would be 3rd.

Also, DeRosa has that defensively versatility LaRussa seems to love so much, since you could theoretically play him just about anywhere except catcher or centerfield. He probably wouldn't be anything special in the outfield, but the Cardinals use Duncan and Ankiel out there all the time, so that wouldn't be anything new. At this point, I'd think the Cardinals would prefer to use him at 3rd, since that seems to be the most glaring hole. Most of the defensive stats I've managed to locate suggest DeRosa is right around average at 3rd, which is also true of the guys he'd most likely be replacing (Thurston and Khalil Greene, neither of whom are natural 3rd basemen). Factor in that DeRosa is easily out hitting those two, and it's definitely an upgrade overall.

I like the move. They don't seem to have traded away anything irreplacable, which is good, since DeRosa is a free agent at the end of the season, so he might end up being a 3-month rental. He can hit lefties (1.070 OPS, though it's only 66 PAs), something most of the team** (and none of the outfielders) can do with any skill, so that's a plus. DeRosa certainly doesn't fix all the Cardinals' problems, but he can patch at least one, and maybe his presence relegates players to bench roles that are better suited for that, which could improve the bench (by also removing players from the major league roster that don't really belong there). I'm curious to see if things turn around a bit here in the next few weeks, before management makes any more moves. See how DeRosa strengthens (or weakens) the team, then decide whether they need to go out and get someone else. I don't think he's enough to make the Cardinals a serious World Series threat, but he gets them a little closer. The NL Central is a bastion of mediocrity this year, so DeRosa might be enough to win the division.

* I'd say Schumaker, Thurston, Duncan, and maybe Molina could claim they're showing patience, at least based on their walk totals, but none of them are hitting for much power.

** On Viva El Birdos this morning, the post pointed out that the team has a .667 OPS against lefties. Further, Schumaker's OPS is .546, Duncan's is .670, Ankiel's .570, and Rasmus' is .417. I mean, that's four of the Cardinals five potential starting outfielders there, all of whom hit like pitchers against lefties. So what do they do if they have to face, say, Ted Lilly? Besides strike out a lot, I mean.

MLB 1/3 Season Review Post

So hey, the baseball season's about a third of the way done now, so why not take a quick look see.

Well, there aren't really many teams distancing themselves from the pack right now. There's the Dodgers with 37 wins (.661), and sort of the Phillies, who have a .615 winning percentage, but only 32 wins so far. There are 14 teams between .500 and .600, and two teams with winning percentages below .400 (the Rockies and the Nationals). So a whole lot of middling teams.

- In the AL, the East seems to be the dominant division, as usual, since they have 3 out of the top 5 teams (Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays). The Rays are hovering around .500, so they're still in it.

- The Central is seriously mediocre, since the Tigers are the only team with a winning record. The Royals have completely squandered their fine April, the White Sox keep failing in their attempts to trade for pitching, and the Twins seem to have been slightly unlucky (they have a +7 run differential, but they're 27-28).

- I can't stop being surprised at seeing the Rangers atop the AL West. I know Seattle has no offense, and apparently neither does Oakland, but still, the Rangers usually can't score enough to overcome their lousy pitching. Texas isn't really pitching that well (they've surrendered as many runs as Oakland and Seattle), but for now at least, they're hitting is compensating.

- The NL West is the one division that right now doesn't seem to be in much doubt. Losing Manny Ramirez doesn't seem to have slowed the Dodgers much, as they've scored more runs (296) than any other NL team, and surrendered fewer runs (211) than any team except San Francisco (208, but have scored only 208).

- The Phillies are currently four games up on the Mets, and for whatever injury issues the Phils may be having, the Mets are even worse off. The Braves are fumbling around .500, the Marlins probably ought to be worse than their record is, and the Nationals, well, they stink.

The NL Central is the tightest division in baseball. The Brewers and Cardinals are currently tied, and the Reds are only 2.5 games back. And then there's the Cubs, 3.5 games back. I really think that if anyone outside Chicago wants to win that division, they might want to start stretching that lead. The Cubs seem out of sorts right now, with the offense sputtering, and Zambrano getting himself suspended, and Harden on the DL (and Aramis Ramierexz is hurt right now too, isn't he). If they can get those guys back and playing well, I think they'll blow the doors of the division. I don't think the Brewers have the starting pitching, the Cardinals don't have the offense (they're allowing the 2nd fewest runs per game in the NL, but they're 9th in runs scored),and I'll believe the Reds can contend for an entire season when I see it.

If I could speak of the Cardinals specifically for a bit. I'm really impressed by the pitching. Carpenter gave up one run over 9 innings last night, and his ERA rose. If he can actually stay healthy, that would nice. Wainwright's done alright considering he can't keep his release point consistent. Lohse has been OK for a 3rd or 4th starter, and Joel Pineiro's been surprisingly good. I'm not sure he can maintain, though. He's not walking anyone (good), but he's not striking anyone out either (bad). If he doesn't keep the ball down, he's toast. If he keeps the ball down, but the ground balls find holes, he's also toast. Wellenmeyer's a concern, though. His walk rate's risen from last year, and the strikeout rate's dropped. I'm not sure if this will hold up, though, Lohse has had some arm tightness, and now Joel's going to pitch through back tightness, probably because he knows Lohse is hurting.

The Bullpen's been OK, except for Blain Boyer, who seems to have been a waste of time. Perez has been OK, Motte seems to have settled down, and Franklin's been better than I expected as a closer.

But the lineup, geez. With Glaus out, they've been Yadi Molina as the 5th or even the 4th hitter in the lineup. I don't care that his OPS was in the upper .700s earlier this season (it's at .698 now), Yadi's not that good of a hitter. Schumaker's hitting about as well as last year, which is all I could hope for, while Khalil Greene has other things to worry about. Joe Thurston has been a big surprise, with a .795 OPS, and he's doing it by drawing walks and hitting for extra bases, where he was previously thought to be all empty batting average. The outfield's been a disappointment. Duncan, Rasmus, and Ludwick's OPS are all in the .700s, which is not too bad for Rasmus, but Duncan needs to hit better to justify his glove, and the Cardinals need Ludiwck to hit so other teams don't just walk Albert all the time. The best hitter on the bench right now is Brendan Ryan, and he's not really a bench guy anymore, since Khalil's out of commission. As for the rest of the usual suspects (Ankiel, Barden, LaRue, Stavinoha) they're all disasters. LaRue's the only one any good at drawing walks (the other 3 all have on-base percentages below .300), and none of them hit for enough power to compensate for that.

And then there's Albert. I respect the Reds for pitching to Albert in this last series, but I sure can't figure why they did it*. There's hardly anyone else in the lineup worth anything except him. Here's how he ranks in some stats on the team: Albert has 38 more plate appearances than anyone else on his team (232 to Schumaker's 194). He's scored 17 more runs than anyone else (43 to Skip's 26). 9 more hits (63 to Skip's 54). He's tied for the lead with Duncan and Thurston with 13 doubles. He has 17 home runs, which is twice that of the the #2 guy on the team (Ludwick, 8). He has 48 RBIs, with Duncan and Ludwick in 2nd at 27. He even leads the team in stolen bases with 7 (no one else has more than 2). He has a more than 40 point lead in batting average on Skip, (.346 to .302), a 101 point lead in on-base on Thurston (.470 to .369), and a 241 point edge in slugging on Ludwick (.698 to .457). Jeez, if this keeps up (both the disparity offensively between Albert and his teammates, and the Cardinals being in contention), and anyone else receives votes for MVP, they might need to get a dope slap.

* I can guess why, though. Even if Albert's hitting really well, he still makes outs over 65% of the time when he isn't walked, so the odds are still in the pitcher's favor if he actually goes after Albert. Which is why I hate intentional walks. It's such a wuss move. Let the pitcher get the guy out.

Team-Building Amusement Exercise - Part 4

Well, sorry for the delay. It was caused by a combination of lack of power, and lack of motivation. I'm here now, though, and ready to wrap this up.

1) Tom Pagnozzi (Catcher), 1991 - 140 games, 510 plate appearances (PAs), 24 2Bs, 5 3Bs, 2 HRs, 57 RBIs, 9 SBs, .264 AVG/.319 OBP/.351 SLG/ .670 OPS.

Other stats: OPS+ 89, -6 Batting Runs Above Average (BRAA), +16 Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA), WARP3 of 4.8.

Man, nine stolen bases from my catcher? That's pretty sweet. Or it was until I noticed he was caught stealing 13 times. Hmm, might have to rein him in a little. It understandable though, since the '91 Cards had only one player with double digit home runs (Zeile, with 11). If you can't hit the big bombs, you might as well run a lot. Anyway, this was Pagnozzi's first year as starter, after years of backing up Tony Pena and then Zeile. Based on his WARP3, this wasalso his best season, probably owing to it being his best defensive season, since his offense was never much better than "slightly below average". So Pagnozzi and Molina somewhat compliment wach other, Molina being more patient, Pags having more pop and speed, and he can probably mentor young Yadi, the way Mike Matheny supposedly did.

2) Albert Pujols (1st Base), 2006 - 143 games, 634 PAs, 33 2Bs, 1 3B, 49 HRs, 137 RBIs, 7 SBs, .331/.431/.671/1.102.

Other stats: OPS+ 178, 69 BRAA, 6 FRAA, WARP3 9.3.

This was the year Albert first started to really have to carry the show himself. Larry Walker was replaced by Juan Encarnacion. Jim Edmonds was not what he used to be, and missed the last six weeks of the season with back issues (or post-concussion syndrome, I forget which). Scott Rolen's shoulder was going to hell. The second best hitter on the team was Chris Duncan, whose defensive shortcomings and failures against lefties I've mentioned frequently. Still, Albert puts up those numbers. The scary thing is, based on WARP3, this is Albert's worst season as a first baseman, and it's still really damn good. I suppose the question might arise of why not McGwire, and the basic answer is, ignoring all the performance-enhancing stuff, McGwire's just too limited a player for my tastes. He has no speed, which makes him a baserunning liability, and defensively, he's nothing to write home about. If I couldn't have fit Albert onto the team, my next choice was potentially Gregg Jefferies, then Pedro Guererro, then Jack Clark. Seeing as my pitching staff isn't loaded with fireballers, I need good defense, and Albert provides it. And the seven SBs with only 2 caught stealings doesn't hurt either.

3) Delino DeShields (2nd Base), 1997 - 150 games, 643 PAs, 26 2Bs, 14 3Bs, 11 HRs, 58 RBIs, 55 SBs, .295/.357/.448/.805.

Other stats: OPS+ 111, 20 BRAA, -12 FRAA, 3.3

It's actually pretty likely Jose Oquendo, circa 1989, would have made a better chocie, but finding good utility infielders isn't always easy, and Oquendo was a known quantity there. Plus, I let myself be seduced by the 55 stolen bases. I told you I'd be interested in speed. Hopefully the infielders on either side of Delino can make up for his defensive shortcomings, though Baseball-Reference's defensive stats say he actually was worth 2.6 runs above average for the season. Hmm.

4) Scott Rolen (3rd Base), 2003 - 154 games, 657 PAs, 49 2Bs, 1 3B, 28 HRs, 104 RBIs, 13 SBs, .286/.382/.528/.910.

Other stats: OPS+ 138, 41 BRAA, 15 FRAA, WARP3 8.5.

2004 would have been a better choice (his WARP3 was 11.6 that year, and his FRAA was 41), but this is still pretty good. It's his second best season in the StL, 4th best overall, and his presence ought to ensure that Albert won't suffer from the lack of protection I mentioned for the '06 season. Interestingly, B-R's stats say Rolen was actually a run or so below average defensively in '03, so I don't know what to make of their numbers.

5) Ozzie Smith (Shortstop), 1987 - 158 games, 706 PAs, 40 2Bs, 4 3Bs, 75 RBIs, 43 SBs, .303/.392/.383/.775.

Other stats: OPS+ 105, 23 BRAA, 17 FRAA, WARP3 8.0

Going by WARP3, this isn't in Ozzie's top 5 seasons, which is kind of staggering. Then again, being 17 runs above average with the glove is pretty bad by Ozzie's standards (in 1985, he was +50 with his glove, which tends to compensate for only being +13 with the bat). Still, this was his 2nd best offensive year, and a down year for Ozzie with the glove is still a career year for a lot of shortstops.

6) Ron Gant (Left Field), 1996 - 122 games, 500 PAs, 14 2Bs, 2 3Bs, 30 HRs, 82 RBIs, 13 SBs, .246/.359/.504/.863.

Other stats: OPS+ 125, 20 BRAA, 5 FRAA, WARP3 3.8

I've never been much of a Ron Gant fan. Struck out a lot, didn't hit for average, had kind of a bad attitude. Still, the Cardinals haven't been overflowing with outstanding left fielders over the last 25 years. Vince Coleman never walked, Bernard Gilkey didn't really hit his stride until he left, and the positions been a revolving door the last seven seasons or so. With all that in mind, I'm not sure who was left to choose, so Gant it is. THe B-R page does say he was worth about 10 runs with his glove, for what that's worth.

7) Willie McGee (Center Field), 1984 - 145 games, 604 PAs, 19 2Bs, 11 3Bs, 6 HRs, 50 RBIs, 43 SBs, .291/.325/.394/.719.

Other stats: OPS+ 103, 13 BRAA, 6 FRAA, 4.3 WARP3

This is one of those selctions with little justification. I'm sure both Jim Edmonds and Ray Lankford have a staggering number of seasons superior to this one, and there are really only two factors to mitigate that. One, I like Willie McGee more than either of them. Two, I didn't feel I had many good options from the 1984 season. It's at the edge of the seasons I have any knowledge of, beyond just looking at stats. There aren't many even average offensive seasons, or many good pitching perfomances, and here was a player who had a decent season, that I knew and liked, so why not choose him?

8) Brian Jordan (Right Field), 1998 - 150 games, 617 PAs, 34 2Bs, 7 3Bs, 25 HRs, 91 RBIs, 17 SBs, .316/.368/.534/.902

Other stats: OPS+ 134, 35 BRAA, 0 FRAA, WARP3 4.7

It's Jordan's best season. of course, hitting in front of or behind Mark McGwire for an entire season probably had something to do with that. Hopefully hitting near Albert Pujols will suffice. Contrary to Baseball Prospectus, B-R says Jordan was worth of 26 runs with his glove. I have no idea who to believe here, you know.

Theoretical batting order: DeShields, Rolen, Albert, Jordan, Gant, McGee, Pagnozzi, Ozzie. I've heard it's a good idea to have a decent on-base percentage guy near the bottom of the lineup, to improve the odds your best hitters (at the top) come up with people on base. Well, Ozzie's OBP is second only to Albert's, so I'd guess he makes a good candidate.

Looking over this, I think I may need to revise some of my selections a bit. I can probably optimize it better, just by selecting different years for some of the players.

Team-Building Amusement Exercise - Part 3

I don't have any sort of lead-in planned for this section. I have five bench players, and between them, I think I have a fair mix of speed, power, and defensive versatility. OK, the defensive versatility is concentrated in one player in particular, but it's still there.

1) Yadier Molina (Backup Catcher), 2004 - 51 games, 151 plate appearances (PAs), 6 2Bs, 2 HRs, 15 RBIs, .267 AVG/.329 OBP/.356 SLG/.684 OPS.

Other stats: OPS+ of 78, -4 Batting Runs Above Average (BRAA), 3, Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA), WARP3 of 0.9

Yadi was pretty much going to be either the starter or the backup, and based on the year's I felt I could choose him from for starting, I was better off with my other option. This was a pretty typical offensive year for Yadi, in that he had and OK average, walked a little, struck out rarely, and didn't show much power. His defense wasn't where it is now (he had 11 wild pitches and 4 passed balls, for example), but he did well at controlling the other team's running game (threw out 8 of 17 base stealers), and he should work reasonably well as the backup.

2) Eduardo Perez (Backup 1st Baseman/Corner Outfielder), 2000 - 35 games, 102 PAs, 4 2Bs, 3 HRs, 10 RBIs, 1 SB, .297/.350/.440/.790.

Other stats: OPS + 97, 1 BRAA, 3 FRAA, WARP3 0.5.

Perez would have been more useful if I'd taken his '02 or '03 versions, but that's the way things go ('02 would have been possible, but then I'd have to find someone in the 2000 bullpen to replace Veres, and I wasn't seeing many appealing options). I narrowed it to Perez, Craig Paquette, or Shawon Dunston. Dunston and Paquette have greater defensive possibilities, at least in LaRussa's eyes. Really, though they were both below average at every position they played. And most critically, theyw ere inferior to Perez at first base, and that's what is really critical, as his primary utility (besides as a bat with moderate power off the bench) is to give my first basemen that one day off a month he needs. Might has well have the person be a good first baseman for when that happens, and Perez wasn't terrible in limited opportunities in the corner outfield slots, either.

3) Jose Oquendo (Swiss Army Knife), 1988 - 148 games, 518 PAs, 10 2Bs, 1 3B, 7 HRs, 46 RBIs, 4 SBs, .277/.350/.350/.700.

Other stats: OPS + 102, 5 BRAA, 2 FRAA, WARP3 of 2.9.

As surprising as it may seem, Oquendo did rack up over 500 plate appearances, but was not the starter at any position, though he had taken 2nd base from Luis Alicea by season's end. But 1988 was the year he truly earned the nickname "Secret Weapon", as he played at least 1 inning at every position on the field, even pitching 4 innings (where he allowed 2 runs and walked 6, but still, points for effort). He logged over 500 innings at 2nd, over 370 at 3rd, and another 101 at SS, so he effectively covers all the infield positions Perez can't. Plus, his 7 home runs represent half of his career total. And yes, he still only had a .350 slugging, but power was never Oquendo's game. Drawing walks, that he was good at, and he earned 52 of them in '88, which makes up for the less-than-impressive power. One thing Oquendo doesn't have is speed. He was caught stealing 6 times in 1988, so I couldn't use him in the running game as much as I might like, but it's a small flaw that I can live with.

4) Ryan Ludwick (Backup Outfielder), 2007 - 120 games, 339 PAs, 22 2Bs, 14 HRs, 52 RBIs, 4 SBs, .267/.339/.479/.818.

Other stats: OPS + 110, 6 BRAA, -3 FRAA, WARP3 1.6.

It probably would have been more useful to take his 2008 season as my starting rightfielder, but I had other plans for that season, and I'm reasonably pleased with the RF I chose. HArd to believe though, as poorly as Edmonds played, and with Duncan and Encarnacion both being hurt at times during the season that Ludwick couldn't manage to get enough innings to be a starter. He logged 324 innings in LF, 252 in RF, and 22 in CF. Statistically, he seems to have been better in center than right, so I'd be more willing to use him there than TLR was, but really, he'd get playing time in all 3 spots. He doesn't walk a whole lot (26 BB to 72 K), but his power means his skills should mesh well with ther other backup outfielder.

5) Brian Barton (Backup Outfielder), 2008 - 82 games, 179 PAs, 9 2Bs, 2 3Bs, 2 HRs, 13 RBIs, 3 SBs, .268/.354/.392/.746.

Other stats: OPS + 97, 2 BRAA, 0 FRAA, 0.8 WARP3.

This is one of those choices that probably has no logical justification. I just like the Crabman. His defensive numbers don't look that great, but I'm betting they'd improve with the opportunity, as I can't imagine it helped his confidence that LaRussa yanked him out of every freaking game for a defensive replacement (and fuck you for that, LaRussa). He has more plate discipline than Ludwick, and more speed, so he offers a different response to situations than Ludwick does. And you can beleive he'll be getting more chances to use his speed than he had.

OK, so three-fourths of the way finished. Next time, whenever that is, I wrap it up with the starters.

Team-Building Amusement Exercise - Part 2

So, the bullpen this time. I'm going to try and describe the role they'll fill as I go along, though it may be a bit vague in some cases. I ended up with 7 relievers, which wasn't my preference. I would rather have six bench players and six relievers, but when I was down to my last few seasons, there weren't many bench players I thought were viable options, not compared to the available relievers. I'll go through them chronologically, from the oldest to the most recent.

1) Ricky Horton (Long Relief/Spot Starter), 1986 - 42 games, 9 starts, 100.3 IP, 4-3, 49 K, 26 BB, 1 CG, 3 SV, 2.24 ERA.

Other stats: 17 Pitching Runs Above Average (PRAA), 4.2 K/9, 1.6 BB/9, 1.027 WHIP, 3.5 WARP3

I always think it's kind of cool when a pitcher has saves and a complete game. I'm a sucker for versatility, and Horton has that. He's good against lefties (their OPS was .564), and righties (.612). He was actually better on the road (.572) than at home (.639). He pitched in every inning at some point or the other. He was, simply put, really good that year.

2) Ken Dayley (Lefty Reliever/7th or 8th Inning Guy), 1990 - 58 games, 73.3 IP, 4-4, 51 K, 30 BB, 2 SV, 3.56 ERA.

Other stats: 5 PRAA, 6.8 K/9, 3.4 BB/9, 1.268 WHIP, 1.5 WARP3

It isn't one of Dayley's better seasons, but it's still pretty good. He's still better than average, and I didn't feel like I could have a bullpen from the last 25 years and not have the guy who was the #1 lefty in the pen for a quarter of that time. Oddly, Dayley was much better against righties (.588 OPS) than lefties (.727), which is why I also listed him as a 7th or 8th inning guy. Lefties still aren't hitting that well against him, and Dayley's no one-out pitcher, so no reason I couldn't use him for entire innings.

3) Mike Perez (8th Inning Guy/Backup Closer), 1993 - 64 games, 72.7 IP, 7-2, 58 K, 20 BB, 7 SV, 2.48 ERA.

Other stats: 15 PRAA, 7.1 K/9, 2.2 BB/9, 1.170 WHIP, 3.0 WARP3

Perez was a guy I wasn't sure I would add. I considered Gerald Perry as the sixth bench guy, essentially just a pinch-hitter. Eventually, I figured I had a guy who could fill Perry's role, and Perez was worth two more wins over replacement than Gerald, so higher value. Perez is a righty that's stronger against righties, but neither side hits particularly well against him. He did almost all his work in the 8th or 9th innings (of 297 batters he faced, 216 were in those two innings).

4) Rob Murphy (#2 Lefty Reliever/LOOGY), 1994 - 50 games, 40.3 IP, 4-3, 25 K, 13 BB, 3.79 ERA.

Other stats: 8 PRAA, 5.0 K/9 2.8 BB/9, 1.190 WHIP, 2.0 WARP3

Picking up lots of relievers in the mid-90s, which I imagine says something about the state of the team at that time. As you could tell from his number of games and innings, Murphy frequently pitched less than an inning at a time. What's interesting about that is he doesn't show much of a platoon difference that would suggest he should be a Lefty One Out GuY. Righties posted a .754 OPS, lefties a .729. What's even stranger is he faced more righties than lefties, so I really have no idea what Torre was thinking, but that's true of many of his bullpen decisions during his StL stint (taking Omar Olivares and Rheal Cormier out of the rotation and slotting them into the 'pen, like the team had dozens of viable starters lined up. Yeah, Allen Watson was a much better option).

5) Tom Henke (Closer), 1995 - 52 games, 54.3 IP, 1-1, 48 K, 18 BB, 36 SV, 1.82 ERA.

Other stats: 35 PRAA, 7.0 K/9, 2.7 BB/9, 1.104 WHIP, 6.3 WARP3

The Cardinals have had several good closers the last 25 years (Worrell, Lee Smith, late career Eckersley, Izzy in a good year), but rarely have they pitched for such a lousy team. The '95 Cardinals are probably the worst squad of the last 25 years, and so it was pretty easy to select their rep. This was Henke's last year, and his only season in the NL, and it's a pretty good one. So the 9th ought to be locked down, by a pitcher with thick Coke bottle glasses, no less.

6) Rich Croushore (Mop-Up Pitcher), 1999 - 59 games, 71.7 IP, 3-7, 88 K, 43 BB, 3 SV, 4.14 ERA.

Other stats: 11.1 K/9, 5.4 BB/9, 1.549 WHIP

Croushore's not a pick that has any statistical justification, as you can tell by his high walk rate and less than impressive ERA. I picked him for one reason: He threw a screwball. In all my time as a fan up to then, I had never known of a Cardinal pitcher that threw a screwball, and that seemed really cool and unique. So Croushore gets in, and hey, I need a guy to pitch when the game is out of hand, so between him and probably Murphy, I'm covered. It should work out, Rich never settled into a consistent role under LaRussa, so why not mop-up guy?

7) Dave Veres (What Do You Need Done?), 2002 - 71 games, 82.7 IP, 5-8, 68 K, 39 BB, 4 SV, 3.48 ERA.

Other stats: 5 PRAA, 6.4 K/9, 3.9 BB/9, 1.282 WHIP, 1.4 WARP3

I always liked Dave Veres. Maybe it was because his 2000 season demonstrated a competence that had been sorely lacking at the closer spot the previous two years under Jeff Brantley and Rickey Bottalicco. Maybe it was that he was effective without being overpowering (his success was heavily reliant on his splitfinger doing its thing, but not having too much movement). This season was part of it. Veres had sort of lost his closing job at the end of 2001, as Steve Kline took some of the save opportunities, and then the Cardinals signed Izzy in the offseason. Veres simply accepted the change in role, and did what the Cardinals asked. If they needed him to be 8th innings set-up guy, he was. If they needed him to pitch the 7th and 8th, he would. If the starter the next day bombed out, and they needed him to pitch the 4th through the 6th, sure, he'd do that. Whatever you needed. So here he is.

Next time, the bench guys. I know, I said I'd do the starters first, but I changed my mind.

Team-Building Amusement Exercise - Part 1

So here's the game:

Try and construct a 25-man roster for a baseball team of your choosing, selecting players from a 25 consecutive years stretch.

Keep in mind certain rules:

1) You must select one player - and only one player - to represent each year, and it has to be based off what they did that season. Example: if you select Jack Clark, but you select him from 1986, well then that's the Jack Clark you get, not the 1987 or 1985 versions. You want either of those Jack Clarks, then you have to select them. And if you select one of those other Jack Clarks, then you can't choose anyone else based on what they did in those seasons

2) You have to build a complete team, meaning you must select set-up relievers, back-up catchers, utility infielders, and so on. The players you select to fill these roles must have played those roles regularly in the season you are selecting them for (we'll allow some wiggle room with relievers). Example: I could not select Jim Edmonds to be a back-up outfielder for the Cardinals, because he was the starting CF every year he was with the team. I could, however select 2001 Albert Pujols to be a utility player because he was not the primary starter at any position that season. That would be his only season I could do that. For my definition of "primary starter", see this post, first paragraph.

3) You can not select a player more than once. So you can't pick 2001 Albert Pujols as a utility guy, 2003 Albert as your starting LF, and 2008 Albert as your 1B. Sorry, you can only have one (though any one of those is, in fact, a valid choice).

Anyway, I've been screwing around with this for a couple of years, off and on, ever since I first saw it on Viva El Birdos (and I think they saw it on a Mets blog originally). I've never managed to actually finish a team until sometime last week, and here it is. This is the best team I felt I could come up with, based on the various handicaps I've placed on myself. Those handicaps, if you want to call them that, are that 1) I consider starting pitching very important. 2) I want this team to be fast. They are going to steal bases and hit-and-run frequently. 3) There are certain players that will be on this team, no argument, I don't care if there are better options. That last one is obviously the largest handicap, but that's just how it is. So this is Part 1, and I'm just going through the starting rotation today. Then I'll hit the bullpen, starting lineup, and the bench to wrap up. Let's go!

1) John Tudor, 1985 - 36 starts, 275 innings, 21-8, 169 K, 49 BB, 14 CG, 10 shutouts, 1.93 ERA.

That's a pretty good season, huh? A few other stats worth mentioning. His Pitching Runs Above Average (PRAA) was 39. As in, he surrendered 39 fewer runs than an average pitcher would have that season. His WHIP (Walks + Hits Per Innings Pitched) is 0.938, which lead the league. His ERA+ was 184, meaning his ERA was 84% better than average. His WARP3 is 8.0, which means he was worth 8 wins over a replacement pitcher.

This season just dwarfs any other year he had. I really believe his workload (305 innings once the playoffs were over) explains a lot about the shoulder problems he had the remainder of his career. That's OK; I have a soft spot for players who are willing to risk their future production to help win now. We like that as fans, don't we to see them playing like they care as much as we do. His next highest innings total was 242 with Boston in 1983; his next highest wins total was 13, in '82, '83, and '86. He never had more than 7 complete games or 2 shutouts in any other season (both those were 1983). His next best ERA in a year he qualifies for the ERA title is 2.32 in 1988. What's amazing is just how much of a control pitcher Tudor was. He averaged 5.5 Ks per 9 innings that year. Contrast that to the guy he finished 2nd in the Cy Young balloting to, Doc Gooden, who averaged 8.7 K/9. An overwhelming power pitcher, especially compared to Tudor. Tudor got by not walking people (1.6 BB/9) and not allowing HRs (0.5/9). Part of that is probably that Busch Stadium was huge, so there weren't a lot of home runs there (though his road ERA was only 2.47), and he had an excellent defense behind him, which is what you need if you're not going to strike people out. Still, I think Tudor would do alright with the team I'll put behind him. And though he wasn't much of a hitter (.138 AVG, .182 OBP, .213 SLG) he did have 3 doubles and 2 triples that year, which isn't too shabby. Probably aided by the Astroturf they had at Busch, but nothing to sneeze at.

2) Chris Carpenter, 2005 - 33 starts, 241.7 innings, 21-5, 213 K, 51 BB, 7 CG, 4 shutouts, 2.83 ERA.

Let's see, ERA+ of 149, WHIP of 1.055, PRAA of 29, WARP3 of 6.6, 7.9 K/9, 1.9 BB/9. Not too shabby. Won the Cy Young, though Clemens and Willis both had legit claims.

I wish Carpenter could have shown this in 2004. Then LaRussa wouldn't have felt he needed an ace, and Jocketty wouldn't have traded Dan Haren (and two others) for the Rich Man's Jeff Suppan, Mark Mulder. Ugh. The thing I remember about this season (besides Carp stumbling a bit in September, and admitting he had trouble focusing since the Cards had locked up the division), he was crazy good over the summer. In June and July, he threw 80.7 innings and surrendered 9 runs. He struck out 76, walked 14, allowed only 49 hits. That's just insane. It makes his August, with a 2.17 ERA look like crap. OK, not crap, but less impressive by comparison, certainly.

3) Bob Tewksbury, 1992 - 32 starts (1 relief appearance), 233 innings, 16-5, 91 K, 20 BB, 5 CG, 2.16 ERA.

Other stats: ERA+ of 157, WHIP of 1.017, PRAA of 24, WARP3 of 5.7, 3.5 K/9, 0.8 BB/9. Finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting.

The kind of success story you associate with Dave Duncan, but this one goes in the win column for Joe Torre and Whitey Herzog, since the White Rat's the one that saw something in Tewks to begin with. Putting up that kind of stat line while striking out less than 4 batters per 9 innings? Astounding. Obviously, you need an excellent defense behind you to make that work, and I guess the Cardinals had that, even with Todd Zeile at 3rd, and whoever they were using at first (It was Galarraga originally, but they dumped him midway through the season, so it might have been Gerald Perry after that). Sadly, this was the high point for Tewksbury, as either he started to regress, his defense grew too porous, or the hitters just figured him out, but it's a heck of a year.

4) Darryl Kile, 2001 - 34 starts, 227.3 innings, 16-11, 179 K, 65 BB, 2 CG, 1 shutout, 3.09 ERA.

The usual other stats: ERA+ of 140, 1.289 WHIP, PRAA 19, WARP3 of 5.2, 7.1 K/9, 2.6 BB/9.

I originally thought this season could go to either Kile or Matt Morris, and Morris actually has better stats in terms of win-loss record, more strikeouts and fewer walks, and a slightly better ERA and WHIP. Apparently though, Kile was still better because Morris' WARP3 was 3.5, so he was a win and a half less valuable to the Cards. I don't know how, but there it is. And I guess, since Kile was a mentor to Morris, it's kind of fitting for Morris to be slid aside to make room for Kile. Anyway, this was a pretty good season for Kile, as I think he'd gotten over the aftereffects of pitching in Coors, which I think had haunted him in 2000. I mean, when your best pitch is a nasty breaking pitch, and you go to a place where it doesn't break, so you can't trust it for two seasons, it might be hard to get used to throwing it again. He pitched really well in 2001, you could always count on him to take the ball when it was his turn, and that's enough.

5) Joe Magrane, 1989 - 33 starts (1 relief appearance), 234.7 innings, 18-9, 127 K, 72 BB, 9 CG, 3 shutouts, 2.91 ERA.

ERA+ of 124, WHIP of 1.24, PRAA of 15, WARP3 of 4.8, 4.9 K/9, 2.8 BB/9.

Originally, I was going to give this spot to 1997 Matt Morris (which would eliminate the issue of whether his 2001 self should take Kile's spot). But, I needed that year for another player, and Magrane's WARP3 was equal to Morris', so what the hell. I also considered Jose DeLeon from 1989, because he had pretty fine stats himself, but his WARP3 was only 4, so I figured Magrane was better, might as well go with him. Besides, DeLeon often seemed to be a cursed pitcher (I used to think of Anthony Reyes as the current generation DeLeon, though he was often getting screwed by run support, while DeLeon was usually the victim of lousy relief pitchers). I wish Joe's WHIP and strikeout rate were a little better, but I can't argue with the complete games, or the innings pitched. The concern would be he wore down in the last month, as his WHIP was 1.896, and he averaged fewer than 6 innings a start. Fortunately, he'll be my fifth starter on this team, rather than the #1 guy he was on the '89 squad, so it shouldn't be as much of a concern.

So there's the rotation. When next we meet (assuming I don't decide to do some NBA posts before then, and that's not looking too likely unless someone requests it. Anyone? You? No? OK then.) I'll hit the bullpen. Marvel at how I scour through crappy Cardinals teams in search of that one useful reliever!