Page 1 of 6
BP: Skepticism & Despair: St. Louis Cardinals
Posted: March 16 07, 9:41 am
by Laodocus8
Skepticism & Despair: St. Louis Cardinals
by Nate Silver
So now the word is out that two-thirds of the Cardinals‘ starting outfield — Jim Edmonds and Juan Encarnacion — is likely to begin the season on the DL.
I don’t want to make too much of this. Neither player is expected to be out for all that long, though you have to wonder about Edmonds, who is recovering from two separate injuries (shoulder, foot), is 37 years old, and is no stranger to the Disabled List.
Still, these injuries are going to expose just how top-heavy the Cardinals are. The story I linked to above suggests that the Opening Day outfield might be Chris Duncan in left, Preston Wilson in center, and Scott Spiezio in right, which is not only a below-average offensive trio but might be the worst defensive outfield since the 1997 Oakland A’s. I don’t know whether injuries tend to snowball, but I do know they’re a bigger problem when neither your bench nor your farm system is ready to produce adequate replacements.
From my point of view, the most underreported story of the off-season is how Walt Jocketty — coming off a World Championship, and more than 3.4 million fans in his new ballpark — allowed the Cardinals to bleed talent when they desperately needed to add it. I’ve publicly disavowed PECOTA’s projection that the 2005 champs will finish with 90 losses, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if that’s where the 2006 champs wind up.
90 losses seems to be a bit of an overreation to me.
Posted: March 16 07, 9:45 am
by jagtrader
*Sigh*
Posted: March 16 07, 9:47 am
by Hungary Jack
I didn't realize that losing Suppan, Marquis, and Weaver to FA constitutes bleeding talent.
Posted: March 16 07, 9:48 am
by Cronos
90 losses?
Yeah. Just a tiny bit of overreaction there.
Posted: March 16 07, 9:50 am
by jagtrader
The Encarnacion injury does not reveal how top heavy the Cardinals are. The existence of Encarnacion on the roster does. This is not a new development.
The farm system helped produced a world championship FIVE MONTHS AGO. That's where Duncan, Wainwright, Reyes, Johnson, Kinney and Pujols -- remember him? -- came from.
Oh, and the bleeding talent line is ridiculous as well.
Posted: March 16 07, 9:51 am
by Leroy
Gloom, despair and agony on me
Deep, dark depression
Excessive misery
If it weren't for bad luck
I'd have no luck at all
Gloom, despair and agony on me.
Posted: March 16 07, 9:54 am
by Cronos
Well, at least we finally know the true identity of periscope_depth.
Posted: March 16 07, 9:54 am
by doe_boy
If the Cardinals projected starting outfield for the whole of 2007 was Speez, Wilson, and Dunc, 90 losses would be possible.
There's just so much 'analysis' going on now with the proliferation of media. And, everybody has to have something meaningful to say.
For me, if Jimmy and Juan aren't ready for the first week or so, wait for them. I'd rather have Jimmy miss the first weeks of April when it's cold, the grass is wet, and he could pull a hammy or a quad.
So long as they are healthy for the bulk of the season.
Posted: March 16 07, 9:56 am
by JL21
Hungary Jack wrote:I didn't realize that losing Suppan, Marquis, and Weaver to FA constitutes bleeding talent.
No doubt! That's the first thing I thought.
And for that matter, what in the blue hell does losing starting pitching have to do with injuries in the outfield?
The BP crew, short of Kevin Goldstein, needs to just stick to posting their numbers and leave the analysis alone.
Posted: March 16 07, 10:00 am
by skmsw
Every team has positions held down by below-average players. Every team has question marks. Every team is likely to do worse if injuries are a problem. Every team has to make do with starters at the back of its rotation that it wishes were better. Every team has liabilities somewhere among its last couple bench spots and its last reliever or two.
That's not sarcasm, it's true.
But personally, I think this is a team that is more vulnerable than many. Our front line players are exceptional, but we do not have aas many of them as we used to. And our key players who are not exceptional are either questionmarks or below-average players.
I have not done any modeling yet, but off the top of my head, I think the risk of the downside of our questionmarks and gambles is a little lower, than the potential of the up-side is high. Everything falling into place and we're a 90-win team. Most things not falling into place and we're a 90-loss team. Things working out the way I expect, we're about a 500 team. Details to follow soon on my blog (and certainly, here on the forum too).