A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
https://gatewayredbirds.org/forum/
Glad to hear it.Elphie15 wrote:I was there!jim wrote:Definitely.Elphie15 wrote:My sentiments exactly, doc. I'm just happy baseball is back!!docellis wrote:I'm just happy it is finally baseball season.
Did you go to the game elphie? You were talking about getting tickets a while back.I'm going Tuesday too!
I'll post all my pictures in a bit! I was too exhausted to do it when I got home last night.
Not at all--I go by Herzogs opinion " players win games --but managers can lose games."Simbagal23 wrote:So, Raddy, just curious....if LaRussa "lost" the game last night due to his lineup, I believe you are (conversely) saying that you hereby give him complete and full credit for winning the world series?!!! As you know, those were his lineups in WS every game......
There's no rule to when you use a squeeze. The whole foundation of the squeeze is based somewhat on surprise. And no, I suppose Tony didn't have the utmost faith in Eck or Wilson (or anyone for that matter) going against Tom Glavine.GatewaySnayke wrote: A low-scoring affair is not why you squeeze. You squeeze because you're desperate for a run late. Were the Cardinals so desperate for a run that they wanted Carpenter of all batters to bunt? It shows that TLR must not have a lot of faith in Eckstein or Wilson.
Maybe you shouldn't put a lot of stock in that. Especially since you don't understand it.GatewaySnayke wrote:Here's something I didn't realize...out of the Mets' 12 hits, only one of them went for extra bases. VEB says that the Cardinals should have "won" 5-4 using metrics that frankly I don't understand.
A new year same old Raddy. The Cards lose because of LaRussa and win in spite of him. You won't have anything to post about when LaRussa retires.raddy wrote:Not at all--I go by Herzogs opinion " players win games --but managers can lose games."Simbagal23 wrote:So, Raddy, just curious....if LaRussa "lost" the game last night due to his lineup, I believe you are (conversely) saying that you hereby give him complete and full credit for winning the world series?!!! As you know, those were his lineups in WS every game......
Then you are guilty of at least two sins:Elphie15 wrote:My sentiments exactly, doc. I'm just happy baseball is back!!docellis wrote:I'm just happy it is finally baseball season.
Here's the paragraph. It's not that we "should have won" it's just that timeliness made the score look worse than the two sides played. Carpenter didn't throw wonderfully, but in the sense of homers, strikeouts, and walks his outing wasn't all that bad.Richie Allen wrote:Maybe you shouldn't put a lot of stock in that. Especially since you don't understand it.GatewaySnayke wrote:Here's something I didn't realize...out of the Mets' 12 hits, only one of them went for extra bases. VEB says that the Cardinals should have "won" 5-4 using metrics that frankly I don't understand.
lboros wrote:in the end, the cardinals got as many baserunners as the mets and had more extra-base hits, yet still contrived to get outscored by 5. that's how big the double plays and the lost baserunners were. all three of the best run-scoring models (base runs, linear weights, and runs created) had the cardinals no worse than even; via base runs (the most accurate model in a sample size this small), the cardinals "won" the game, 5 to 4.
Good points, but I'm going to disagree on the can of corn. It would have been a very good catch if he made it. With So, he pretty much needs to make those catches to justify being out there, but that was a tough play.Legynd wrote:Observations on last night:
5) Carp was not sharp. But catch Delgado's warning track can of corn and it's a different game.
Actually, in a sample size this small, the most accurate model is what happened on the field.lboros wrote: . . . via base runs (the most accurate model in a sample size this small), the cardinals "won" the game, 5 to 4.
I think people are being hard on So. A dead-pull hitter got one all the way off the wall to the opposite field. It would have been over the head of practically every left fielder in baseball. I'm not nuts about the dropped fly ball, and I'd've liked it better if he stayed on his feet on the one over his head. But I wouldn't read too much into it.jim wrote:Good points, but I'm going to disagree on the can of corn. It would have been a very good catch if he made it. With So, he pretty much needs to make those catches to justify being out there, but that was a tough play.Legynd wrote:Observations on last night:
5) Carp was not sharp. But catch Delgado's warning track can of corn and it's a different game.
