GatewayRedbirds.com

Mask --

I guess it's all relative. Personally, I get a chuckle out of people thinking I was "wrong" about Renteria (who hit about .280 with 36 doubles, 100 runs scored, and 70 RBI last year -- pretty much exactly what I projected him for in Boston -- while fighting back, groin, and hamstring problems all year), and about Eckstein (who recently went two full months with an OPS of about 575, and who even without the current injury was pacing to score about 80 runs while hitting leadoff for a contender).

I also think it is funny that I get labeled as a one-trick pony. Which trick? Eckstein? Mulder? Haren? Barton? Duncan? Edmonds (is NOT over the hill)? Yadi (overrated by Cards fans)? AP (end of May: everyone was over-reating to the hot streak, and he won't hit more than about 45 homers this year)? Reyes (not throwing as hard as last year, looks like Haren-esque performance is his current upside)? All themes I've beaten to death at times this year. Among many others.

And I always enjoy the posts that attempt to perform psychological assessments of me over the internet to determine and report on my motivations. I guess if we can "know" what is in the head or heart or stomach of a pro athlete we've never met, why not an anonymous internet poster, right? If Marquis can be a head case, why not ole Steverino oppositional and contrarian? No offense taken, I guess I invited it when I brought up elements of my past record. I intended it to give some context (I'm not always negative about everybody), not to invite psychological analysis, but an open door is an open door.

Huge --

As I mentioned above to Mask, I don't think my projections of Renteria in Boston were all that far off, actually. The Sox gave up on him way too quickly, NOT because they didn't think he could "take it" but because they were worried that his back would prevent him from performing up to his ability (also why they had to include cash in the deal). They traded him for the player that brought them Coco Crisp -- widely believed at the time to be a similar player to Johnny Damon, except not yet in his prime years, and cheap -- so they did not exactly give him away.

I do not think that the DPs in 2005 completely vindicate Eck and Grudz last year. In 2004 our defensive efficiency rating was first in the major leagues; in 2005 it was fifth in the major leagues, a relative drop. The infield was the primary culprit, as one would expect given the large percentage of GBs allowed by our pitching staff (which also contributed to the large number of DPs).

I *was* surprised (pleasantly, contrary to popular opinion) that Eck did as well as he did last year, both at bat and afield. But I was fairly consistent about saying that this year would see a slide backwards, and I think it is fair to say that we have. I continued to say that he would give back BA and OBP even after he had very strong months in April and May -- I pointed to exactly why we would see a backslide (his BABIP was about 50 points higher than is typical for him), and lo and behold it's happened exactly that way.

Now, I *will* readily acknowledge that I tend to fly with pretty big-picture stuff. I go with the probabilities, and except when the probability is 100%, there is LOTS of room for probability to not play out as expected, especially in the short term. I was wrong about Womack in 2004, because he defied the odds and had a very good (and very hot, and pretty lucky) year from wire to wire (not unlike Duncan right now?). But eventually, Womack is what he is, and ever since 2004 ended he has been exactly what one would expect. Ditto Eck, and safe money is probably still on similar outcomes for Duncan. It does NOT mean I will turn out to be right about the rest of this year (don't look so good for me now, does it? But I'm holding steady there -- and maintain that many will be surprised at the outcome, and if I lose, by how close it yet ends up), or even right about him at all -- the probability is not 100%, and there's lots of room for me to be wrong.

As far as Miles goes, as long as we're acknowleding tendencies to remember our successes more than our failures -- you expected him to hit .300 and put up a SLG of .420. That would have been hitting the ball considerably more than "a bit" better than he has.

Fat_Strat wrote:He's beating the odds. That's what this thread is all about.

skmsw wrote: I *was* surprised (pleasantly, contrary to popular opinion) that Eck did as well as he did last year, both at bat and afield. But I was fairly consistent about saying that this year would see a slide backwards, and I think it is fair to say that we have. I continued to say that he would give back BA and OBP even after he had very strong months in April and May -- I pointed to exactly why we would see a backslide (his BABIP was about 50 points higher than is typical for him), and lo and behold it's happened exactly that way.

People are comlaining about Eck's year, but what we're seeing from him is very close to his career averages, and it's still the second best year he's had in the last four. That's not to say his production is outstanding, or that it can't be improved upon...but consider this:

The much maligned run scoring pace he's on this year is almost exactly in line with what he had last year (90 in 158 last year...over 158 this year he's on pace for 89.3).. Last year, no comlpaints...in fact, most people by their own admission seemed pleasantly surprised. This year, he "has trouble scoring runs" and all we seem to see are his flaws.

Honestly, there's a whole list of people whose performances have dropped off more significantly, or at least as significantly, as Eckstein's has over the last year: Edmonds, Flores, Isringhausen, Marquis, Molina, Mulder, Thompson, and Suppan...and that's just of the players that spent last year with the Cards (~62% of the returning players to the team).

So, is the problem really a horribly disappointing campaign from Eckstein? Or is it just that our perceptions, and expectations, are a little out of whack considering the relatively disappointing year the Cards are having in general? I think that's a question we all need to ask ourselves.

Well, Easton, actually I complained about his runscoring last year too. I felt that a leadoff hitter scoring ~90 runs (with Walker, AP, and Edmonds following him) on a contending team that scored more than 800 was not particularly good production. And I said consistently last year that if Eck were hitting 8th he would be fantastic -- but that he simply is not the caliber of hitter I would EVER be comfortable giving the most plate appearances on my team.

Now, by default I've also acknowledged that there are not obvious candidates to bump him. But last year AND this year, I'd never bat him first.

skmsw wrote:Well, Easton, actually I complained about his runscoring last year too. I felt that a leadoff hitter scoring ~90 runs (with Walker, AP, and Edmonds following him) on a contending team that scored more than 800 was not particularly good production. And I said consistently last year that if Eck were hitting 8th he would be fantastic -- but that he simply is not the caliber of hitter I would EVER be comfortable giving the most plate appearances on my team.

Now, by default I've also acknowledged that there are not obvious candidates to bump him. But last year AND this year, I'd never bat him first.

I agree that first is not the ideal spot for him...and I didn't mean to make it sound like my comment was directed at only you. There are many others who post with far less consistency and far more vitriol on the subject than you.

Out of curiousity...what do you think of the fact that Eck is on roughly the same run scoring pace as last year, in front of essentially the same OPS production from the #2 and #3 slots, but with an OPS that's 80 points lower (with both the OBP and SLG having decreased...although, the SLG much more)? That seems to fly in the face of much of the numerical work that has been done on the subject...

Out of curiousity...what do you think of the fact that Eck is on roughly the same run scoring pace as last year, in front of essentially the same OPS production from the #2 and #3 slots, but with an OPS that's 80 points lower (with both the OBP and SLG having decreased...although, the SLG much more)? That seems to fly in the face of much of the numerical work that has been done on the subject...

Again, I'm not sure it is as complicated as we're making it:

Eck 4/1 thru 5/31:
.330 .402 .392 = .794
10 extra base hits and 4 SB in 209 AB
34 runs in 52 games, a pace of 101 for the year

Eck 6/1 thru 8/20:
.257 .304 .280 = .584
6 extra base hits and 3 SB in 268 AB
31 runs in 63 games, a pace of 76 for the year

So, his OPS does seem to correlate with his runs scored.

But also -- can you guess which of those stretches above saw AP average 12 homers per month and 1.2 RBI per game, and which stretch saw him average 6.5 homers per month and 0.51 RBI per game??? That factor seems fairly significant to Eck's pattern too . . . When AP hit 25 homers in two months, Eck could potentially score every time he got on base, from wherever he was -- which is why his OPS of 794 was enough to have him scoring at a pace of over 100 runs, when a similar OPS last year was only enough to score ~90.

What did you correctly predict about Daric Barton?

GatewaySnayke wrote:What did you correctly predict about Daric Barton?

I wasn't saying I correctly predicted anything about Barton (or any of those guys) -- I was saying that I harped on him repeatedly (as opposed to the suggestion that all my posts, and all my harping, was limited to Eckstein).

Ohh, OK.

skmsw wrote:Huge --

As I mentioned above to Mask, I don't think my projections of Renteria in Boston were all that far off, actually. The Sox gave up on him way too quickly, NOT because they didn't think he could "take it" but because they were worried that his back would prevent him from performing up to his ability (also why they had to include cash in the deal). They traded him for the player that brought them Coco Crisp -- widely believed at the time to be a similar player to Johnny Damon, except not yet in his prime years, and cheap -- so they did not exactly give him away.

I do not think that the DPs in 2005 completely vindicate Eck and Grudz last year. In 2004 our defensive efficiency rating was first in the major leagues; in 2005 it was fifth in the major leagues, a relative drop. The infield was the primary culprit, as one would expect given the large percentage of GBs allowed by our pitching staff (which also contributed to the large number of DPs).

I *was* surprised (pleasantly, contrary to popular opinion) that Eck did as well as he did last year, both at bat and afield. But I was fairly consistent about saying that this year would see a slide backwards, and I think it is fair to say that we have. I continued to say that he would give back BA and OBP even after he had very strong months in April and May -- I pointed to exactly why we would see a backslide (his BABIP was about 50 points higher than is typical for him), and lo and behold it's happened exactly that way.

Now, I *will* readily acknowledge that I tend to fly with pretty big-picture stuff. I go with the probabilities, and except when the probability is 100%, there is LOTS of room for probability to not play out as expected, especially in the short term. I was wrong about Womack in 2004, because he defied the odds and had a very good (and very hot, and pretty lucky) year from wire to wire (not unlike Duncan right now?). But eventually, Womack is what he is, and ever since 2004 ended he has been exactly what one would expect. Ditto Eck, and safe money is probably still on similar outcomes for Duncan. It does NOT mean I will turn out to be right about the rest of this year (don't look so good for me now, does it? But I'm holding steady there -- and maintain that many will be surprised at the outcome, and if I lose, by how close it yet ends up), or even right about him at all -- the probability is not 100%, and there's lots of room for me to be wrong.

As far as Miles goes, as long as we're acknowleding tendencies to remember our successes more than our failures -- you expected him to hit .300 and put up a SLG of .420. That would have been hitting the ball considerably more than "a bit" better than he has.

Steve,

Come on. Renteria was a disaster most of the season. Had he not had two weeks of absolute levitation, his numbers would have been horrendous instead of just a big disappointment. Sure he scored 100 runs. This despite a .330 OBP. Bo Hart would have scored a hundred runs hitting in front of Ortiz and Ramirez last year. But your biggest argument was Renteria's stellar defense. 30 errors Steve. He might as well have been playing from a hospital bed.

If we're going to excuse Renty for his back (have you seen his Xrays?) then perhaps we can afford Eck the same courtesy. He was hitting lights out until his concussion. He led the league in hits pretty much the first half of the season. He hasn't been the same, but I don't think that earns swami status for ya.

You and I both know that slugging status wasn't the real issue with Miles. No one expected power numbers from him. He was there to give us defense and get on base. His on base is closer to my number than yours. His defense has been disappointing. Still there he is backing up Eckstein and Belliard. His .262 BA and .332 OBP leave him close enough to my numbers which were .280-.300 BA and .330-.340 OBP. I was way off in slugging. All but one of his HR's were foul balls. But he didn't make this team with anyone expecting him to put up big slugging numbers. We'll save that for Duncan.

You can stick with your Duncan numbers until the cows come home. He can't sustain .640 slugging forever (not to mention his .900 slugging since your prediction) but he isn't going to .440. The guy has obviously ironed out some of those holes in his swing while in the minors and he is a legitimate threat in the majors. He'll struggle some. Even Albert does that. But it would take a vertical crash to get to your numbers. Not happening.

By the way, that "defensive efficiency rating" is a red herring. There is no way to compare that statistic with the different middle infields. Rolen was out virtually the entire season in 2005. Don't you think that having four different 3rd basemen might skew that particular statistic? Oh, and I would have to guess that rookie Molina vice Matheny behind the plate would also impact the stat. Good grief Steve.

But here is a statistic that you were quick to point out to me at the beginning of the year when Renty was ahead. ZR. At the end of the year Renty was fourth from the bottom with .809 while Eck was six players higher with .833.