GatewayRedbirds.com

Jmodene wrote:Mike Lowell has been hurt most of the year, and when he's played hasn't been all that impressive - .213/.308/.350. He may be toast, and that (plus his salary) explains in large part why Texas backed off (twice) on possibly trading for him, and nobody else has expressed any sort of interest.

BTW, Yadi was up to .241 before today's game, having gone 17-for-50 (.340) since the all-star break.

skmsw wrote:

Jmodene wrote:Mike Lowell has been hurt most of the year, and when he's played hasn't been all that impressive - .213/.308/.350. He may be toast, and that (plus his salary) explains in large part why Texas backed off (twice) on possibly trading for him, and nobody else has expressed any sort of interest.

BTW, Yadi was up to .241 before today's game, having gone 17-for-50 (.340) since the all-star break.

So without having seen Lowell play, and clearly without understanding the circumstances of his "being hurt most of the year," you're going to judge his 660 OPS as a problem -- but be impressed by Yadi's recovery all the way up to 630. And discounting Lowell hitting the snot out of the ball on rehab, you're nevertheless impressed by Yadi going 17 for 50 (ooh, maybe he'll get 20 extra base hits this year after all!) on the strength of a .380 BABIP. Do I have that right?

Richie Allen wrote:Just read where the Cardinals were considered a loser at the trade deadline. Can't say I disagree but I want to ask a question. I've heard this mentioned here and it was the point Passan was trying to make, "Because … rookie Jon Jay (and his .446 batting average on balls in play) is hitting well?" My question is what do you suppose a guy that's hitting a few points from .400, or was at the time, should have for a BABIP?

Magneto2.0 wrote:

slide_into_first wrote:

Jmodene wrote:

slide_into_first wrote:You read it first here: Cardinals and Reds will tie with 94 victories. Jake Westbrook wins the playoff game.

Except that if the two teams are tied for the NL Central/Wild Card lead, MLB policy is to seed the playoffs with the team having won the season series as the "division winner" and the other team as the "wild card".

This is what happened to us in 2001; the Astros and Cards tied with 93 wins (tops in the NL; Arizona had 92 wins and Atlanta had 88) but since Houston won the season series, they were seeded #1 and we were seeded #4.

So far, we're leading the season series with the Reds, 7-5, with (I think) six more to go, so we need to win at least 3 of those games to clinch the series and avoid the playoff.

I think wildcard will come from another division. Ok, 92 victories apiece then.

No team in the NL is winning that many games. I don't see how..maybe the Padres..but..

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Richie Allen wrote:Just read where the Cardinals were considered a loser at the trade deadline. Can't say I disagree but I want to ask a question. I've heard this mentioned here and it was the point Passan was trying to make, "Because … rookie Jon Jay (and his .446 batting average on balls in play) is hitting well?" My question is what do you suppose a guy that's hitting a few points from .400, or was at the time, should have for a BABIP?

The year George Brett hit .390 he had a .368 BABIP. Ted Williams hit .406 with a .378 BABIP and .407.

The thing about Jay is that his BABIP is sky high, but his LD% is low. He's really not been hitting the ball particularly well, just somehow finding a hole 45% of the time he hits the ball.

obucard wrote:

Magneto2.0 wrote:

slide_into_first wrote:

Jmodene wrote:

slide_into_first wrote:You read it first here: Cardinals and Reds will tie with 94 victories. Jake Westbrook wins the playoff game.

Except that if the two teams are tied for the NL Central/Wild Card lead, MLB policy is to seed the playoffs with the team having won the season series as the "division winner" and the other team as the "wild card".

This is what happened to us in 2001; the Astros and Cards tied with 93 wins (tops in the NL; Arizona had 92 wins and Atlanta had 88) but since Houston won the season series, they were seeded #1 and we were seeded #4.

So far, we're leading the season series with the Reds, 7-5, with (I think) six more to go, so we need to win at least 3 of those games to clinch the series and avoid the playoff.

I think wildcard will come from another division. Ok, 92 victories apiece then.

No team in the NL is winning that many games. I don't see how..maybe the Padres..but..

The Cards are on pace for 91 and are currently 4th in the NL.

Magneto2.0 wrote:

obucard wrote:

Magneto2.0 wrote:

slide_into_first wrote:

Jmodene wrote:

slide_into_first wrote:You read it first here: Cardinals and Reds will tie with 94 victories. Jake Westbrook wins the playoff game.

Except that if the two teams are tied for the NL Central/Wild Card lead, MLB policy is to seed the playoffs with the team having won the season series as the "division winner" and the other team as the "wild card".
This is what happened to us in 2001; the Astros and Cards tied with 93 wins (tops in the NL; Arizona had 92 wins and Atlanta had 88) but since Houston won the season series, they were seeded #1 and we were seeded #4.
So far, we're leading the season series with the Reds, 7-5, with (I think) six more to go, so we need to win at least 3 of those games to clinch the series and avoid the playoff.

I think wildcard will come from another division. Ok, 92 victories apiece then.

No team in the NL is winning that many games. I don't see how..maybe the Padres..but..

The Cards are on pace for 91 and are currently 4th in the NL.

That's nice.
No sarcasm, btw. I didn't realize that. Still don't think we're gonna see many teams in the NL over 94 wins, if any.