11/21/24
October 27, 2006
The rich tradition of baseball in the city of St. Louis, MO got a little richer tonight.: Congratulations to the St. Louis Cardinals for winning the 2006 World Series.
Congratulations Cardinals and Cardinals fans! You deserve it!
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:11 PM on October 27, 2006
(grumble)(mumble)(grumble) Congratulations Cards fans....I guess.......(sigh)
posted by commander cody at 11:16 PM on October 27, 2006
Two years ago, the Cards opened the gates to Red Sox fans and kept their stadium open late for the celebration. Must be good karma coming back around, along with some darn good baseball. Congratulations, Cards!
posted by swerve at 11:16 PM on October 27, 2006
I'm glad they won it although I would have been just as glad for the Tigers to win. I enjoyed this series as much as I got to see.
posted by fenriq at 11:25 PM on October 27, 2006
Congrats Cardinals. I just wish the Tigers wouldn't have played so poorly this series. I think when people look back on this Series it will remembered more for Tigers blunders than great play by the Cardinals. Only 105 days or so until pitchers and catchers report 2007 prediction White Sox over Dodgers in 6
posted by erkno11 at 11:38 PM on October 27, 2006
erkno, man, I came into this thread with the sole intention of asking how long 'til pitchers and catchers. Thanks! PS. Not to derail, but I hope the Mexican leagues went well for you this past summer.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:46 PM on October 27, 2006
I don't get Leyland's decision not to pitch a rested Rogers. His reasons were: 1. He didn't want Rogers to pitch in that atmosphere. The guy is a veteran. He should have been able to deal with few fans yelling about pine tar. Instead, he sends out a rookie who pitched well, but made a costly throwing error that maybe Rogers doesn't make. 2. It wasn't a game 7. But it might as well have been. You don't win, you go home. Win tonight, you take a little momentum back to Detroit. Instead, you lose with a guy who has thrown 23 consecutive scoreless innings sitting on his ass in the dugout. I just don't get it. Must be good karma coming back around, along with some darn good baseball. Good karma, maybe. Darn good baseball, not so much. A coach wouldn't show this game to his little league team unless he wanted to recreate the bad news bears.
posted by justgary at 11:52 PM on October 27, 2006
I don't think Rogers would've mattered. The Tigers' problem was hitting, not pitching, and defence. Rogers could only do so much. Plus, Rogers was dynamite at home and Verlander was going to have to pitch at some point. Momentum is a fickle thing, it can change from inning to inning. Basing the idea that Rogers winning game 5 would've meant a shift is silly.
posted by dfleming at 01:12 AM on October 28, 2006
The Tigers' problem was hitting, not pitching, and defence. Rogers could only do so much. The less you hit, the more important pitching and defense is. The tigers weren't hitting, and Leyland had little he could do about it. He could control who pitched. (and if you don't think tiger defense was a problem we were watching two different series. Defense was a huge problem for detroit.) Verlander was going to have to pitch at some point. Sure, at home would have been nice. Basing the idea that Rogers winning game 5 would've meant a shift is silly. Winning game 5 would get you to game 6. Winning game 5 gets you back to detroit. Momentum or not that's not silly. Saving rogers because he's dynamite at home when the first game you need is on the road is. It's not that I think starting Rogers meant a win tonight, or that if he did win the tigers would take the series. But I think it was their best chance, and Leyland's reasons (nor yours) make much sense to me. Win tonight, worry about tomorrow tomorrow.
posted by justgary at 01:19 AM on October 28, 2006
Ah, I think it's unfair to blame Leyland for the decision to pitch the kid. He could have just as easily been lights-out, then we'd be talking about what a genius decision it was. I honestly believe Rogers would have imploded. Card's fans may be known for politeness towards the opposition, but I believe they would have been relentless and the pressure would have gotten to him. It was great to see that little guy play so big. Eckstein, a proven winner, everybody talks about Larussa winning Series' in two leagues, how about being the STARTING SHORTSTOP for two winners in two leagues? How many guys have done that?
posted by vito90 at 03:42 AM on October 28, 2006
I think it's unfair to blame Leyland for the decision to pitch the kid. I'm not blaming him. I'm saying I would have made a different decision. He could have just as easily been lights-out, then we'd be talking about what a genius decision it was. But he wasn't (though he pitched well), so we don't have to talk about what a genius move he made. We know he wasn't lights out, and we know he made a critical error. Would Rogers have been lights out? Now that we don't know. But he was pitching pretty well. And he's a 4 time gold glove winner, so I doubt we'd be talking about the error at this point. I've never understood this arugment that 'well, you never know, one decision was as good as the next'. No, it's not. One would have worked better than the other. The one he chose didn't work. Would the other have? We'll never know. I honestly believe Rogers would have imploded. Maybe so. But if that's the case, if your best post season pitcher, the one with all the experience, is so fragile he can't handle road pressure, they didn't deserve to win. how about being the STARTING SHORTSTOP for two winners in two leagues? How many guys have done that? He's a very average shortstop who's been lucky enough to be on two WS teams.
posted by justgary at 04:06 AM on October 28, 2006
...and win the WS MVP, getting 8 hits in his last 11 AB. Average? He's a pesky sparkplug... :-) a 5'7" ML SS that hits .292. Lucky? The harder he works, the luckier he gets.
posted by sfts2 at 05:05 AM on October 28, 2006
/sigh Basketball season starts soon...
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:38 AM on October 28, 2006
I feel scrappier for reading this thread.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:15 AM on October 28, 2006
I'm glad to see the Cards win, and as a Pujols fan (who wouldn't be one), we won't have to listen to the "His team never wins it all" crap anymore. I really thought the Tigers were a team of destiny, but in order for that to happen I guess you need to be able to actually make contact with the ball. Early in the game Jeff Weaver looked like the Ryan Express! I was also thinking about the strange year Weaver had. Starts the year in sunny California, until he's bounced out of town to make room for his brother, and after all is said and done, after people are feeling sorry for him, and when it looks like his career will never amount to being anything but a journeyman, he starts and wins the final game of the World Series. I agree with those above who said even though Rogers may have been the more logical choice, Detroit was never going to hit enough to save practically any decent pitching performance. And that defense, wow, awful. To have to see that in a World Series is difficult to watch. But no defense compares to what a butcher Duncan is for the Cards! Good thing Jose Canseco wasn't on the bench because the Cards probably would have used him as a defensive replacement for that guy. LaRussa's lucky having him in the field didn't cost them the game.
posted by dyams at 07:20 AM on October 28, 2006
So, do you think that fraze is still out partying in the streets of Saint Loo right now?
posted by NoMich at 07:29 AM on October 28, 2006
I was the only one to pick the cards in 5 on the whole site... go me!
posted by Kendall at 07:47 AM on October 28, 2006
Sounds like the Tiger fans aren't very happy. Leylands decision was sound. I agree that Rogers may have imploded (possibly not) We'll never know now. Hell Larussa even tried to balance out the Tigers piss poor defense and allowed Duncan to play Rt. field. Now is that sportsmanship or not. It all came down to the fact the Tigers were out-played. Defensively,Offensively and any other kind of 'ively" you can think of. Looking at all of the replays I think Verlanders error was a catchable ball. Piss poor throw but catchable. Inges should take a lot of heat for his piss poor performance. I always like to see the underdog win. Especially when some know-it-all sportswriter for USA today makes a comment taht as bad as the Cards are "he'll take Tigers in THREE and the biggest problem the Tigers will have is keeping their concentration and trying not to laugh all the time.
posted by skeet0311 at 08:43 AM on October 28, 2006
The "TIGGERS" just played piss-poor baseball and the Cards capitalized on it. Period! (and "TIGGERS" is not a spelling error. The Winnie-the-Pooh performance of the "TIGGERS" justifys the "moniker". Maybe they just read too much press coverage and believed it.
posted by skeet0311 at 08:51 AM on October 28, 2006
Good karma, maybe. Darn good baseball, not so much. A coach wouldn't show this game to his little league team unless he wanted to recreate the bad news bears. Justgary most of your comment make sense but how could you say a coach wouldn't show this game to his team. He would if he wanted to show them how a true team plays(cardinals). Also no body gave them a chance in hell to win and they still believed in them selves, a great lesson for little leaguers. If I had a son in little league and wanted to teach him anything about how to play I would just show him any game with Eckstien playing in it. This guy plays ball the way your suppose to.
posted by StlFan at 09:10 AM on October 28, 2006
Skeet0331 - welcome to SpoFi. I just want to take a moment and point you in the direction of our Sportsfilter Guidelines. It's a little something the site has worked up as a "rules of the road" for our site on how things work, what makes a good comment or thread and general overall guidelines on behaviors and whatnot. If you have any questions, you can take them to the lockerroom or use the contact us page. Thanks so much and again, welcome to SpoFi!
posted by jerseygirl at 09:11 AM on October 28, 2006
...and win the WS MVP, getting 8 hits in his last 11 AB. Average? He's a pesky sparkplug... :-) a 5'7" ML SS that hits .292. Lucky? The harder he works, the luckier he gets. posted by sfts2 Didn't say he wasn't a hard worker (as is probably most of the players on his team), didn't say he had a bad ws, said he was average, and average he is. This guy plays ball the way your suppose to. Not sure what that even means.
posted by justgary at 09:21 AM on October 28, 2006
Gary, I think not starting Rogers in Game 5 has to do with matchups. Who would have thought that Weaver would have given up only 2 runs, 1 earned, over 8 innings? Weaver is not a top-tier starter, and starting Verlander against him makes sense. Perhaps the Tigers weren't hitting well, but Leyland had to believe that at some point they would start (again, did anybody really think Weaver was going to pitch as well as he did?). And if they could scrape together enough runs to keep Verlander in the game, and eventually win the game, you want Rogers pitching against Carpenter in Game 6. Maybe he should have played the hot hand, but it seemed to me Leyland planned on winning Game 5, and was thinking ahead to how he would win Game 6.
posted by rocketman at 09:33 AM on October 28, 2006
So, do you think that fraze is still out partying in the streets of Saint Loo right now? If I were in St. Louis, NoMich, I would have been whooping it up to the high heavens. I had to settle for stunned disbelief from my recliner on the outskirts of Toronto. It's still hard to fathom. I was pretty confident going into last night simply because the Tigers had played such awful baseball, it was tough to figure them turning it around in one day. Anyway, I'm going to go in the back room and dance around merrily before the mall gets crowded.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:37 AM on October 28, 2006
I think not starting Rogers in Game 5 has to do with matchups. Who would have thought that Weaver would have given up only 2 runs, 1 earned, over 8 innings? Weaver is not a top-tier starter, and starting Verlander against him makes sense. That's an excellent point rocketman, and one I had not considered.
posted by justgary at 09:39 AM on October 28, 2006
Congratulations to the St. Louis Cardinals and to all their fans out there and in here on SpoFi. Not to take any thing away from the Cards or their fans, but Detroit played horrible defense in game 4.(the series matter of factly) I don't have the stats in front of me, but how many errors did the Tigers make in this series that led to Cards runs? Their pitchers made enough by them selves to lose games,especially game 4. Just plain horrible defense,and the Cards cashed in on it. They took advantage and won, plain and simple. Again, congrats to all their fans and the Cards themselves.
posted by Ghastly1 at 09:42 AM on October 28, 2006
WOOT! I am mostly happy for Hollywood and Rolen and Albert. Funny how a team wins 105 and 100 games and craps out...only to win 83 games the next year and take the Series. I wasn't aware of the 82 series, but 85 and 87 and 04 broke my heart. Finally my team are the Champs!
posted by mbd1 at 09:45 AM on October 28, 2006
Didn't say he wasn't a hard worker (as is probably most of the players on his team), didn't say he had a bad ws, said he was average, and average he is. From ESPN: Eckstein became the fourth shortstop to win a World Series MVP, joining Bucky Dent of the Yankees (1978), Alan Trammell of the Tigers (1984) and Derek Jeter of the Yankees (2000). Despite opening 0-for-10 in the series, Eckstein finished 8-for-12 and wound up hitting .364 (8-for-22), with three doubles, four runs batted in and three runs scored. He was the offensive catalyst of the last two games. In the Cards' 5-4 win in Game 4, Eckstein had all three of his doubles and drove in the winning run with two outs in the eighth inning when his drive to left-center ticked off the glove of a lunging Craig Monroe. In the Game 5 closer, Eckstein drove in the first run with an infield single, the third run with a grounder to short, and scored the final run after another infield single. Sounds a little better than average to me justgary, but maybe I'm wrong :o)
posted by Steeler_Fan at 09:56 AM on October 28, 2006
Being in the position that the Tigers were in, having to win 3 games in a row, I can't understand Leyland's strategy as to why he didn't pitch Rogers. "We've got to win game 5 before we get to game 6" is what one of his comments were. No shit!!! Thats why you pitch the best pitcher you've got at the time, which in this case was Rogers. Still can't understand that pitching decision. Would of it made a difference? We'll never know
posted by Ghastly1 at 09:56 AM on October 28, 2006
Ghastly I'd read rocketman's comment, his reasoning makes about as much sense as possible.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:59 AM on October 28, 2006
I can't understand Leyland's strategy as to why he didn't pitch Rogers. Rocketman's comment was sound (and based on more than 'well you never know anything could happen...' crowd). If st. louis had been pitching carpenter I could make a better case to go with rogers. But with weaver, you tend to believe you'll score a few more runs.
posted by justgary at 10:34 AM on October 28, 2006
Despite opening 0-for-10 in the series, Eckstein finished 8-for-12 and wound up hitting .364 (8-for-22), with three doubles, four runs batted in and three runs scored. He was the offensive catalyst of the last two games. In the Cards' 5-4 win in Game 4, Eckstein had all three of his doubles and drove in the winning run with two outs in the eighth inning when his drive to left-center ticked off the glove of a lunging Craig Monroe. But he was absolutely invisible the first two games of the series. Do you think he wins the MVP award if he starts the series 8-for-12 and ends it 0-for-10? My choice would have been Scott Rolen. He had better numbers than Eckstein and contributed in every single game.
posted by grum@work at 11:07 AM on October 28, 2006
St. Louis Cardinals 2006 World Series Champions*
posted by Jedi Master at 11:16 AM on October 28, 2006
Eckstein, a proven winner, everybody talks about Larussa winning Series' in two leagues, how about being the STARTING SHORTSTOP for two winners in two leagues? How many guys have done that? Well, there have only been 4 other cases where a player has played shortstop in the World Series with both a National League team and an American League team.
- Dick Bartell (1936/37 NYG, 1940 DET) - did not win in any three appearances
- Alfredo Griffin (1988 LAD, 1992/93 TOR) - not a starter, but played shortstop all three times and won all three times
- Mark Koenig (1926/27/28 NYY, 1932 CHC, 1936 NYG) - not a starter in the NL, but won all 5 times.
- Walt Weiss (1988/89 OAK, 1999 ATL) - not a starter in ATL and lost in ATL
- Mariano Duncan (1990 CIN, 1993 PHI, 1996 NYY) - a starter all three times, he won the title with Cincinnati and the Yankees
- Dal Maxvill (1964/67/68 STL, 1974 OAK) - he lost in 1968, but wasn't a starter in Oakland.
- Below average hitters (OPS+): Eckstein - 86, Duncan - 88
- Token All-Star appearances: Eckstein - 2 (2005/06), Duncan - 1 (1994)
- Token MVP votes: Eckstein - twice (11th in 2002, 21st in 2005), Duncan - once (23rd in 1985)
- Gold Gloves won: Eckstein - 0, Duncan - 0
- Hall of Fame Monitor values: Eckstein - 21, Duncan - 22
posted by grum@work at 11:51 AM on October 28, 2006
A sorry performance by Detroit to be sure. You can't win if you make lots of errors and don't hit. I'm a die hard Detroit fan but I'm glad the Cards put Detroit out of its misery.Makes me think the Tigers played over their head for a long time and came to earth.At any rate it was still a great year.
posted by sickleguy at 12:14 PM on October 28, 2006
Yea ying yang,after reading rocketmans comment, I guess it tends to make more sense. I guess he summed it up pretty well. I guess thats why I'm not a manager, not even at the T-ball level.
posted by Ghastly1 at 12:19 PM on October 28, 2006
Congratulations, St. Louis. You guys played a hell of a World Series on all levels. Enjoy your victory. *sob* I STILL LOVE YOU, TIGERS!
posted by wingnut4life at 12:53 PM on October 28, 2006
Bizarre managing move of the night: Jim Leyland putting in a pinch-runner for Sean Casey in the 9th inning.
- He would not be the winning run or even the tying run.
- He's on second base with no one on base behind him, so there is no chance for a force play or a double play.
- He would not be attempting to take extra bases as it's the hitter/runner behind him that would be important.
- He's their hottest bat in the lineup, so even if they DID manage to score two runs to tie it, they would probably like to have his bat available in the extra innings.
posted by grum@work at 01:00 PM on October 28, 2006
Yeah, McCarver questioned that move.
posted by mbd1 at 01:08 PM on October 28, 2006
What do the 1919 Chicago White Sox and the 2006 Detroit Tigers have in common.
posted by Jedi Master at 01:18 PM on October 28, 2006
Yeah, I caught that too, but was in a bar and couldn't hear the TV. I asked my father (former college baseball coach) if he knew what the hell Leyland was thinking. He thought it was strange, too. I haven't as yet heard an explanation of this move. Anyone else?
posted by hawkguy at 01:21 PM on October 28, 2006
Anyone who thinks you "only need one out of three " to win need only review recent Cardinal history. Rogers is one heady SOB, and losing to him AT BUSCH could have led us down "that road", again. It wasn't the slugfest everyone predicted, but that's not a bad thing. Now the fun starts...paying for our success, with Soup, Jimmy Adventure and Weaver all free agents, and Carp at the door, accountant in tow. What do we do about Juan, Gooch, Belly and that walking Pepto Bismol ad, Dunc? Jocketty, in all his brilliance, should get as much sleep as he can, NOW, because those sleepless nights are only moments away. Anyway, THANK YOU Cardinals; after 24 years of crow, we finally get to eat dessert!~
posted by wolfdad at 01:25 PM on October 28, 2006
My 3 favorite teams are the White Sox, Cardinals, and whoever is beating the Cubs ! Next year how about Sox vs. Cardinals ?? Congrats to St.Louis fans and the Cards.
posted by wdminott at 01:29 PM on October 28, 2006
Next year how about Sox vs. Cardinals ?? I'm hoping for a Tigers/Cubs match up next year. Now that'd be fun!
posted by commander cody at 01:49 PM on October 28, 2006
Jim Leyland putting in a pinch-runner for Sean Casey in the 9th inning. Perhaps his calf muscle flared up again?
posted by commander cody at 01:53 PM on October 28, 2006
Go RedWings!!
posted by commander cody at 02:03 PM on October 28, 2006
Go RedWings!! Yeah, cc! At least we don't have to worry about the St. Louis Blues crushing our spirit. Right? Anyone? Helloooooo...?
posted by wingnut4life at 02:08 PM on October 28, 2006
Amen! Can I get a witness! Halleiluah! That's the nice thing about Detroit, even at the darkest hour there's always another team ready to make you start dreaming again.
posted by commander cody at 02:13 PM on October 28, 2006
That's the nice thing about Detroit, even at the darkest hour there's always another team ready to make you start dreaming again. Go Lions! Uh, wait...
posted by dfleming at 02:19 PM on October 28, 2006
Go Lions! Well, 3 out 4 ain't bad.
posted by commander cody at 02:21 PM on October 28, 2006
I absoutlutely love the recent trend in baseball of the underdogs winning it all...in the last few weeks no one gave the cardinals a shot at winning a game much less winning any of the series that they were in...even the fox pregame and baseball tonight tilted almost all of thier covereage on the cards opponents....as far as rogers goes....jim leyland knew that he would crumble under the pressure that this game presented and that his best shot at winning with him would be at home where maybe he could curtail the pressure and make a decent start against anthony reyes....it was a bad situation for the tigers....i dont think eckstien should have been mvp( and way to go bud selig on the pronounciation of his name) i think it was a toss up between rolen and eckstien...just like rolens 10 game hit streak and defensive prowess on third...nothing against the little guy..he is a hell of a ballplayer and i hope he stay in st. louis for years to come. Now the real work begins for walt jocketty....i dont think we can resign mulder, carpenter, and suppan...but we need at least two out of the three...maybe trade encarnacion for a good lefty and let mulder go..i just hope spezio can hang around for another year...maybe become the everyday guy in left...anyway...i was born in '82 and we won the series...my son was born in '06 and we won the series...and based on my celebration last night...there is a good chance we see a winner in '07.
posted by BLAKE320 at 02:34 PM on October 28, 2006
But he was absolutely invisible the first two games of the series. I direct you to the Game Two wrap page, where you'll find video of Eckstein's diving stop in the fifth inning. Not a game turner, but not invisible, either. I suspect Eckstein received some extra credit for fielding his position more than capably, unlike some other WS participants with large Olde English "D"s on their hats who shall remain nameless. Do you think he wins the MVP award if he starts the series 8-for-12 and ends it 0-for-10? I don't know ... if Elvis Presley hadn't been able to sing, do you think he'd be famous? The point is, it happened that way. Eckstein did finish strong in extremely visible spots. Couple that with no clear-cut choice, and hey -- the scrappy guy who has never owned a new car wins. And he even got to hear Bug Selig mangle his name. He's their hottest bat in the lineup, so even if they DID manage to score two runs to tie it, they would probably like to have his bat available in the extra innings. I said exactly the same thing to my wife. If they had tied the game, Leyland would have been crucified for removing Casey.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:53 PM on October 28, 2006
I don't know ... if Elvis Presley hadn't been able to sing, do you think he'd be famous? He really didn't have that great of voice. Most of his success was in the promotion and being in the right place at the right time. Once he was declared to be a legend it wouldn't have mattered if he just turned into a fat freak show doing Vegas all the time....oh.....wait a minute....
posted by commander cody at 03:32 PM on October 28, 2006
Amen! Can I get a witness! Halleiluah! That's the nice thing about Detroit, even at the darkest hour there's always another team ready to make you start dreaming again. I'm just hoping that since baseball season is over we can resume relentlessly calling for Millen's execution (or at least firing).
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:05 PM on October 28, 2006
I vote for execution. Just put him out of every one's misery.
posted by commander cody at 04:07 PM on October 28, 2006
Alfredo Griffin? grum, you never cease to amaze me. Eckstein? Plays smart, hard, and uh, scrappy too. as far as rogers goes....jim leyland knew that he would crumble under the pressure that this game presented Yeah, ol Johnny-Come-Lately Kenny Rogers, he of the 207-139 W-L record and winner of 4 of the last 6 Gold gloves at his position, is a chokin' bastard. Lets start the rookie! Matchups? There are no more matchups if you don't win that game. Congrats to St. Louie and their fans, coming on the heels of their disappointments in recent years, this has to be particularly sweet.
posted by mjkredliner at 06:46 PM on October 28, 2006
Do you think he wins the MVP award if he starts the series 8-for-12 and ends it 0-for-10? I don't know ... if Elvis Presley hadn't been able to sing, do you think he'd be famous? That's not a fair comparison. My example takes the same information and simply rearranges it. Nothing is gained or lost in what I did. Your example simply takes away from the equation without balancing it out in any way. The point I was making was that Rolen contributed in every single game. There was no opportunity to go 0-for-10, since he never had a game where he didn't add value with his bat.
posted by grum@work at 07:50 PM on October 28, 2006
Hey Everyone, newbie here. I am a Cardinal fan in St. Louis and would just like to clarify a few things: 1) Chris Duncan is a work in progress. He has been a first baseman but since we have a guy named Pujols there, they are trying to switch him to the outfield, Great bat - 22 homers in only half a season - but as you all saw he needs some work on his play in the outfield (OK a LOT of work) 2) Weaver pitching that well wasn't a total surprise. Dave Duncan, the Cards' pitching coach, is a miracle worker with struggling veteran pitchers. In Jeff's first couple starts after being signed he was horrible, but he just kept getting better and by September was really starting to pitch well for the most part. Thanks to all for making this a very interesting and informative site!
posted by cheftad at 11:02 PM on October 28, 2006
The point I was making was that Rolen contributed in every single game. There was no opportunity to go 0-for-10, since he never had a game where he didn't add value with his bat. I have to agree with grum -- the MVP should have gone to Rolen, who contributed in every game and had a higher BA, OBP and SLG than Eckstein. Eckstein is a better story, though, because he is "scrappy" and "little" and personifies something deeply significant about the value of trying -- and it's the media who votes on these awards, after all, so it was kind of a foregone conclusion. Now the fun starts...paying for our success, with Soup, Jimmy Adventure and Weaver all free agents, and Carp at the door, accountant in tow. What do we do about Juan, Gooch, Belly and that walking Pepto Bismol ad, Dunc? Jocketty, in all his brilliance, should get as much sleep as he can, NOW, because those sleepless nights are only moments away. The Cardinals are going to try to hang on to Edmonds, but not by picking up his option at $10MM. Considering the dearth of CF talent out there, I think they can't afford to let him walk. Supp and Weaver perhaps pitched their way out of the Cards' budget in the postseason, but if forced to choose I might do the unpopular thing and try to sign Weaver, who has the potential to be a better pitcher than Suppan (although Suppan is Mr. 200 League-Average Innings, which is worth something). The Cardinals are stuck with Juan at about $5MM per for the next two, and I don't see them moving that mediocrity without eating some of the salary. Maybe if he could play a decent CF (and he looked good the few times I saw him there this year) if Edmonds walks, his crap bat and plate approach don't kill you too much. Taguchi can stay on as a bench player/defensive replacement, basically a fifth outfielder. I would let Belliard go in free agency; I liked what I saw with the leather but he's fat and slow, and the Cardinals may get a compensatory draft pick for him (more of a statement of how weak the 2B position is rather than how strong Belliard is). Find a cheap player to replace him, someone like Hector Luna (wait a minute...). As to Duncan, this is probably unpopular as well (and will never happen because of who his dad is), but I would say trade him now. He has some skill with the bat but all signs point to his performance this year being a fluke and he has DH written all over him. Trade him now while his value is at its peak. As to the Series generally, it wasn't a great one, but as a Cardinals fan, I'll take it. It is crazy that the 105-win juggernaut goes to the Series in 2004 and gets swept, while the 83-win version stumbles into the playoffs and then wins it all. I went to Games 3 and 4 of the 2004 World Series and it was very depressing (even if it was kind of cool to see history of sorts being made with the Red Sox winning their first in 86 years) -- you wonder whether this version of your team will ever make it there again, and whether Pujols and Rolen will be doing a retrospective show in 30 years saying that's the one thing that's missing from their legacies (the ring), etc. I was there for the three games this year and what a wonderful thing to behold. Definitely my personal highlight in terms of sporting events attended.
posted by holden at 11:48 PM on October 28, 2006
Your example simply takes away from the equation without balancing it out in any way. Geez, that's simple algebra rules. Everyone knows that.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:02 AM on October 29, 2006
And by the way, welcome cheftad -- great first post.
posted by holden at 08:30 AM on October 29, 2006
Eckstein gets the MVP because he had the clutch hits in games 4 and 5 simple as that. :o)
posted by Steeler_Fan at 09:07 AM on October 29, 2006
That's not a fair comparison. My example takes the same information and simply rearranges it. Nothing is gained or lost in what I did. Your example simply takes away from the equation without balancing it out in any way. And I think the comparison is fair, because you're basing giving the award to Rolen over Eckstein on a scenario that didn't happen. He finished 8-12 and played extremely solid defense in the final three games, the three games that pushed the Cardinals to the world title. He doesn't get a little extra boost for that? In addition, he hit well beyond what would could have been expected of him coming into the Series -- batting .364, banging out three doubles and driving in four runs. Did Rolen do that much beyond the norm? Yes, he hit .421 with three doubles and a homer, but he only drove in a pair and whiffed four times in 19 ABs. A power hitter plating two runs wins you the MVP? Finally, Game Four: Eckstein: 4-5, 3 2B, R, 2 RBI Rolen: 2-4, R Game Five: Eckstein: 2-4, R, 2 RBI Rolen: 1-3, RBI, BB It ain't just what you do ... it's when you do it.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:38 AM on October 29, 2006
In addition, he hit well beyond what would could have been expected of him coming into the Series -- batting .364, banging out three doubles and driving in four runs. You lost me here fraz. What does it matter if player A does better than his norm than does player B? Did Rolen do that much beyond the norm? Yes, he hit .421 with three doubles and a homer, but he only drove in a pair and whiffed four times in 19 ABs. A power hitter plating two runs wins you the MVP? Bah, strikeouts are over rated.
posted by justgary at 10:09 AM on October 29, 2006
Did Rolen do that much beyond the norm? Yes, he hit .421 with three doubles and a homer, but he only drove in a pair and whiffed four times in 19 ABs. A power hitter plating two runs wins you the MVP? I agree with fraze that driving in two runs is not very impressive, especially since he batted behind Pujols who had an OBS of .429.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 01:11 PM on October 29, 2006
Finally, Game Four: Eckstein: 4-5, 3 2B, R, 2 RBI Rolen: 2-4, R Game Five: Eckstein: 2-4, R, 2 RBI Rolen: 1-3, RBI, BB Fair enough, but since it's a best of 7 and not a best of 3, I don't see why you shouldn't include the results from the other games the Cardinals won. Game One: Eckstein: 0-5, 0 R, 0 RBI, 1 K, 0 BB Rolen: 2-4, 2 R, 1 RBI, 1 K, 0 BB (including a double and a HR) Game Three: Eckstein: 2-4, 1 R, 0 RBI, 0 K, 1BB Rolen: 1-4, 1 R, 0 RBI, 1K, 1 BB I agree with fraze that driving in two runs is not very impressive, especially since he batted behind Pujols who had an OBS of .429. Actually, he some times came to bat behind Edmonds, not Pujols. Here is a record of Rolen's plate appearances: Game 1: #1 - comes to bat with no one on base. #2 - comes to bat with no one on base. #3 - comes to bat with Edmonds on 1st. Hit's a ground-rule double, so Edmonds is forced to stop on 3rd, rather than scoring in most cases with a double. #4 - comes to bat with Edmonds on 1st. Pops up. Game 2: #1 - comes to bat with Pujols on 1st. Hits an infield single. #2 - comes to bat with no one on base. #3 - comes to bat with no one on base. #4 - comes to bat with no one on base. Game 3: #1 - comes to bat with no one on base. #2 - comes to bat with man on 1st and 3rd. Walks. #3 - comes to bat with man on 1st. Hits a single. #4 - comes to bat with Pujols on 2nd. He grounds out and Pujols moves to 3rd. #5 - comes to bat with man on 1st and 2nd. Hits into double play. Game 4: #1 - comes to bat with no one on base. #2 - comes to bat with no one on base. #3 - comes to bat with no one on base. #4 - comes to bat with man on 1st and 2nd. Strikes out. Game 5: #1 - comes to bat with man on 2nd and 3rd. Walks. #2 - comes to bat with no one on base. #3 - comes to bat with no one on base. #4 - comes to bat with man on 1st and 2nd. Singles, scoring the lead runner. In summary: 21 plate appearances 11 times with 0 men on base 4 times with just a man on first 6 times with at least one man in "scoring position" Of the 10 times there were men on base, Rolen batted .400/.500/.500. Of the 4 times there was someone in "scoring position", he batted .333/.666/.333. I think you'd have to be really picky to say that he didn't perform up to (or beyond) expectations when given the opportunity.
posted by grum@work at 08:44 PM on October 29, 2006
Of the 4 times there was someone in "scoring position", he batted .333/.666/.333. Obviously, there were 6 times, not 4 times.
posted by grum@work at 09:39 PM on October 29, 2006
And his numbers were : .250/.500/.250 win runners in scoring position. Not as great as I first assumed, but given there were only 4 official AB with runners in scoring position, not terrible.
posted by grum@work at 09:44 PM on October 29, 2006
What does it matter if player A does better than his norm than does player B? I'm saying getting an inordinate amount of offense from a scrawny shortstop, especially when your power hitters aren't supplying squat, makes Eckstein's contribution even more valuable. You wouldn't have expected more than a couple of slap hits from Eckstein, and instead you got 8-for-12 with three doubles and four RBI. Or do you think Miguel Tejada's offensive contribution doesn't carry more weight because he also plays shortstop, a position which normally doesn't supply power and runs driven in? Fair enough, but since it's a best of 7 and not a best of 3, I don't see why you shouldn't include the results from the other games the Cardinals won. The award isn't the MCP -- Most Consistent Performer. It's the MVP, and when you do what you do counts, at least in my mind. Eckstein performed his best in the final three games, and those were the three games that won the Cardinals the title.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:23 PM on October 30, 2006
You wouldn't have expected more than a couple of slap hits from Eckstein, and instead you got 8-for-12 with three doubles and four RBI. That's just cherry-picking his best performances in the series. When you consider the entire series, Rolen had better numbers, even if you consider Eckstein's voodoo on the fielders chasing after his flyballs in that one game. Eckstein performed his best in the final three games, and those were the three games that won the Cardinals the title. But they don't win the title if they don't win the first game. If it was judged like that, then the MVP from 1993 should have gone to Joe Carter because his HR was the one that won it for the Blue Jays. In fact, putting on my "intangibles/clutch/chemistry" hat, you could say that next to the 4th win, the 1st win is the most important one. If you go down 1-0 in the series, you are already playing from behind. The Cardinals went up 1-0 in the series because of Rolen's contributions and despite Eckstein's lack of contribution.
posted by grum@work at 04:36 PM on October 30, 2006
It's great they could win it two years to the date that they were last in the World Series, too. Kind of brings it full circle. Congrats Cards fans! Enjoy the championship, it's a lot of fun!