2011 Cards vs. 2005 Cards

[Richie Allen]

Um...duplicate post.

[Richie Allen]

[expletive] triplicate post...

[mcgee51taguchi99]

I'm not savvy enough to know how/where to determine whether the numbers back my perception, but the 2005 team did extremely well the third time through the lineup against a starter, if he was still in there. I realize all teams are probably going to do slightly better seeing a guy for the third time in a game, and on the rare nights where the offense couldn't get going or there was a very close game, they would either bust the game open third time through or get just enough runs to put themselves over the top. Always helps of course having a bullpen not prone to coughing up that lead. Call it clutchiness, making adjustments, wearing a guy down, whatever . . . I never really hear that discussed about the 2004/5 teams.

I hope for the best for the 2011 version, I'm just not sure I see a lineup that's going to work pitchers and get them into a danger area their third time through. There are of course a lot of other things that go into a season, but my main concern 2005 versus 2011 is the worse defense now. I think the starters are going to be taxed more than we're accustomed to seeing by the D giving extra outs to the opposition.

[jim]

Even with Eckstein playing sub-par D at SS,

Says who? I think Eck played par, despite not being pretty.

[Fat Strat]

Even with Eckstein playing sub-par D at SS,

Says who? I think Eck played par, despite not being pretty.

2005 was the only year that Eck had a negative UZR at SS. You really can't read much into that for his other seasons in StL, but for that particular season he wasn't great.

[themiddle54]

Even with Eckstein playing sub-par D at SS,

Says who? I think Eck played par, despite not being pretty.

2005 was the only year that Eck had a negative UZR at SS. You really can't read much into that for his other seasons in StL, but for that particular season he wasn't great.

It's not about the 4'1" albino, though. It's about the grounders. That staff was a ground ball machine, and with Rolen, Grudz and Pujols all playing ++ D, and Eckstein playing a bit under par, they vacuumed those suckers up and spit 'em out in the form of outs. The 2005 Cards turned 196 double plays. You know the last NL team to turn that many? The 2005 Cardinals. 182 of them led the NL last year, 171 the year before. The average NL team in 2005 turned only 154. That, friends, is 41 more DP, or 1.5 more games worth of outs than the average team turned that year. That team's staff got 1.05 GB per FB. You know the last NL team to do that? The 2005 Cardinals. (Next closest is the 2009 Cardinals at 1.02)

All the GIDP were not a product of any virtuosic performance at SS by Eckstein, they were a product of that pitching staff generating ground balls like, well, like it was their job. They turned the walks and singles they allowed into routine GIDP at a historical rate.

Edit: and that has a TON to do w/ why their ERA beat their FIP by a half-run. Giving up a walk was no biggie when it was so much more likely than normal to be erased with a twin-killing.

[Fat Strat]

Just a small point there, middle, but Rolen didn't play much in '05. Just 55 games. He was amazingly good for those games, though. Nunez was also more than passable over another 77 games started.

I don't really know who else started games at 3b that year. Mabry, I guess, and even he wasn't awful.

[themiddle54]

Just a small point there, middle, but Rolen didn't play much in '05. Just 55 games. He was amazingly good for those games, though. Nunez was also more than passable over another 77 games started.

I don't really know who else started games at 3b that year. Mabry, I guess, and even he wasn't awful.

Good point. Still. It's about the grounders. That's the little bit of magic in that team that you won't find in their FIP or WAR or xFIP or UZR or OPS+ or other. And it had a lot more to do with the team's success than chemistry or magic or whatever you want to assign to it.

[Fat Strat]

Back to the comparison...

2005 - the club was exceptionally adept at getting grounders and played very good infield defense.

2011 - do we think our starters are any less adept at producing grounders than that staff? I can't look up the numbers on my phone easily, but my gut would say that this staff is at least close.

Of course, our middle infield defense isn't even in the same universe.

[planet planet]

Back to the comparison...

2005 - the club was exceptionally adept at getting grounders and played very good infield defense.

2011 - do we think our starters are any less adept at producing grounders than that staff? I can't look up the numbers on my phone easily, but my gut would say that this staff is at least close.

Of course, our middle infield defense isn't even in the same universe.

Nor is our outfield defense.