1) Are the Cardinals as well-rounded and diverse as many would have us believe, or is it the presence of one of the premiere hitters in the game today? The Cardinal announcers are constantly making it sound like they could overcome any obstacle, but are they in first place or even considered a great team without Pujols?

The Cardinals' success is primarily a function of Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds and Albert Pujols. They have lost Rolen for a short time and succeeded, so obviously there is more to the puzzle. But the key to the Cardinals is that they have big time hitters to carry the load.

 

2) What are your thoughts on the pitch count? I've heard announcers and analysists use the point that if a pitcher never throws over 100 pitches, he's never going to learn how to. It's important to be cautious with young arms, but I think there's some validity to that.

 

Also, do you think it's the quantity of pitches or the types of pitches that have to be made that matter? By that, I mean is a guy who throws 80 pitches but is in a lot of tight jams with baserunners worse off than a guy who tosses well over 100 but rarely needs to work out of the stretch?

I have soured on pitch counts over the last year or so. Bill James has always questioned their validity, and posted an excellent article in his guide to pitchers refuting the Baseball Prospectus studies. The idea that a pitcher will never "learn" how to throw 100+ pitches has some truth into it. After all, if you are trying to work out, it is not continuous rest that will make you stronger, it is working out.

 

Generally, you want to be careful with younger arms, especially with those pitchers under 23-25. These are the pitchers who are most prone to injuries when you overwork their arms, and there are hundreds of examples of such pitchers (Dwight Gooden is a recent example). The pitch count is nice because it helps identify the most egregious examples of overuse.

 

Once you pass a certain point however, you can let your mature pitchers rack up longer outings. You let common sense prevail here. If your pitcher is collecting outs easily, go ahead and leave him in. If he is working deep counts and every out seems like a chore, yank him. There is a hidden message in the pitch count as well. It seems virtually impossible to me for a pitcher to rack up 140 pitches in a nine-inning game unless he is pitching somewhat poorly. If he is pitching very well, he probably will not have that many pitches.

 

Other factors influence pitch counts these days. The pinch hitter and the ace reliever cut down on the innings pitched by starters. After all, if a game is close and the pitcher is not throwing a shutout, are you going to let a oitcher pinch hit when you have five bats on the bench and seven fresh arms in the bullpen? It used to be that a team had one reliable reliever. Nowadays, it is counter-productive to leave starters in when many relievers can pitch just as well late in the ballgame.

 

As for the quality of pitches, definately. It is not necessarily the pressure of working out of jams, but also the type of pitches thrown. Breaking pitches are harder to throw than fastballs and change-ups. There is time spent warming up between innings, etc. There are many factors involved beyond the strict pitch count. Excellent question.

 

3) I didn't really just see the Yankees get swept by the Royals, did I? Is this a sign of bad luck or are the Yanks just not that good?

The beauty of baseball is that a bad team can sweep a good team and it is not that far out of the question. Without studying the series in detail, I suspect Kaufmann Stadium is the kind of park that exploits the Yankees' weaknesses.

Maybe this was asked

 

What's wrong with Jim Thome?

Maybe this was asked

 

What's wrong with Jim Thome?

Thome suffered the first month from a lingering back injury, and that landed him on the disabled list for a few weeks. Thome is usually a slow starter, and I think he will turn it around soon. In fact, he hit a home run just a few minutes ago.

What's with Jason Schmidt? It's possible he's injured, but he's look awful this year. He was always one to get the pitch count up early in the going, but it seems he's not making it past four innings without throwing at least 80 pitches. His command is almost non-existent, and his ERA is near six.

11) Of, say, the past five World Series winners, which team do you think was the weakest?

 

The 2003 Florida Marlins. They did not make the postseason in any other year.

 

 

The bulk of that team is still together with some tweaks. Give it some time before you use that as your reason.

 

I think they were better than the '00 Yankees.

Where the hell was the Cardinals team I saw tonight last October?

 

Note: that was a facetious question. But seriously, is this Cardinals team the one to beat in the NL right about now?

There is a seven game series to decide the fate of the universe or some such nonsense, and you have been chosen to be the G.M.. You can choose 25 players off current 40 man rosters, plus the coaching staff. Who do you select, who sits where in the batting order and what's your rotation?

What's with Jason Schmidt? It's possible he's injured, but he's look awful this year. He was always one to get the pitch count up early in the going, but it seems he's not making it past four innings without throwing at least 80 pitches. His command is almost non-existent, and his ERA is near six.

Schmidt is a prime candidate for the overuse crowd. Given his workload and injury history, I suspect arm troubles are the blame.

 

The bulk of that team is still together with some tweaks. Give it some time before you use that as your reason.

 

I think they were better than the '00 Yankees.

The 2000 Yankees were part of a team that won four world championships. The 2001 Diamondbacks had Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. The 2004 Red Sox were one of the best offensive forces of all time. That leaves the Angels and the Marlins. That the Angels won the division last year put them slightly ahead. I just can not endorse a team that has yet to win a division title as part of their run.

Where the hell was the Cardinals team I saw tonight last October?

 

Note: that was a facetious question. But seriously, is this Cardinals team the one to beat in the NL right about now?

I could not see an argument that they are not the team to beat, quite honestly. This team still has their offensive core from last season, and even seem to have added production at shortstop on the cheap, grabbing David Eckstein. Last year, Chris Carpenter missed the playoffs. He's back this year, Matt Morris has found his stuff, and Mark Mulder joined the team and found his stuff as well. This team is more dangerous than last years team, even if they don't win 105 games again.

There is a seven game series to decide the fate of the universe or some such nonsense, and you have been chosen to be the G.M..  You can choose 25 players off current 40 man rosters, plus the coaching staff.  Who do you select, who sits where in the batting order and what's your rotation?

Let's see.

 

RF- Bobby God

LF- Manny Ramirez

CF- Jim Edmonds

1B- Albert Pujols

3B- Eric Chavez/Alex Rodriguez (platoon)

SS- Miguel Tejada

2B- Jeff Kent

C- Ivan Rodriguez

 

P- Roger Clemens

P- Johan Santana

P- Pedro Martinez

P- Jake Peavy

P- Mark Prior

P- Eric Gagne

P- B.J. Ryan

P- Brad Lidge

P- Javier Vazquez

P- Roy Halladay

 

The first four start in that order. Generally when I pulled a starter, I would replace him with the best available relief pitcher, and work down the line from there. In a seven game series, I'd see no need to carry more than ten pitchers.

 

C- Brad Schneider

IF- Rafael Furcal

OF- Torii Hunter

PH- Adam Dunn

PR- Carl Crawford

 

Generally, you want your bench to make up for deficiencies in your lineup. In this case, we have a huge lefty bat off the bench, a speed burner, an excellent defensive infielder with a good bat, the same for the outfield, and the best arm in baseball behind the plate.

Several baseball "Journalists", such as Chris Russo and Mike Francessa often say that certain teams are "built for the postseason" Do you think there is any validity to that argument?

I'm not Al. But I'll say yes.

 

Would you like to face the Marlins in a 5 game series?

 

Beckett - Willis - Burnett - Beckett - Willis?

Several baseball "Journalists", such as Chris Russo and Mike Francessa often say that certain teams are "built for the postseason" Do you think there is any validity to that argument?

Generally no. I saw Mik's argument, and the counter to that is that the Braves had the greatest rotation perhaps in baseball history and got one world championship out of the deal. Front line talent trumps depth in a short series, but baseball is such a toss-up sometimes that the hot hand beats the elements of roster construction.

 

Look at the 2003 NLCS for example. The Cubs needed one game to clinch at home, and had Kerry Wood and Mark Prior in games six and seven. I honestly do not think there is a right and wrong way to build for the postseason. A good team in the regular season is a good team in the postseason.

You don't think that a team like the 03 Red Sox an bash their way into the playoffs and then ultimately lose to a team with better pitching? Rivera was the difference in that series. Pedro gave up the tying run but Rivera shut the Sox offense (better than the '27 Yankees) down for 3 innings before Boone hit the HR.

 

The Sox beat the Yankees last year because of their pitching depth, same with the Cards. From Game 4 of the ALCS to Game 4 of the WS, the Red Sox had one non-quality start, if memory serves.

 

This is also why I believe in clutch performers, some players jusy fold when the presure is on and others thrive.

Yeah, but that's the mark of a great hitter. If he's usually a very good or great hitter, chances are good he'll come through in "clutch" situations more times than not.

You don't think that a team like the 03 Red Sox an bash their way into the playoffs and then ultimately lose to a team with better pitching? Rivera was the difference in that series. Pedro gave up the tying run but Rivera shut the Sox offense (better than the '27 Yankees) down for 3 innings before Boone hit the HR.

 

The Sox beat the Yankees last year because of their pitching depth, same with the Cards. From Game 4 of the ALCS to Game 4 of the WS, the Red Sox had one non-quality start, if memory serves.

 

This is also why I believe in clutch performers, some players jusy fold when the presure is on and others thrive.

There are a number of factors that go into these playoff games. Game 7 of the ALCS saw Jason Giambi hit two home runs. If you ask most Sox fans, they will tell you bad management caused that loss. If you note the statistics, you will see that the Yankees allowed more runs a game in 2003 than did the Red Sox.

 

Looking at the Sox run, I would say that the bench depth was a vital cause as well. In game four, they had an able pinch-runner that helped them score the tying run. Meanwhile, in game six the Yankees had the potential series winning run at the plate, but they had no one better to offer than Tony Clark.

 

I think my primary objection to the pitching wins championship theory is that people assume that you can win championships if you build enough pitching, and you will lose championships if you do not have good pitching staffs. It is true that you will probably not win a championship without a great pitching staff. You will also fail to win if you lack good offense, or good defense, or a good bullpen. Good championship caliber teams are balanced, capable of playing good ball on both sides of the field.

 

Teams will lose if they put shit pitchers on the mound. However, the lack of an ace is not necessarily the death knell to a team that everyone thinks. I hope my feelings on the matter are clear.

what ruins the "clutch" argument for me is that people like Mark Lemke and Pat Borders have had great individual post seasons. Are we supposed to believe they are great or even good hitters? Despite being "clutch", Lemke was out of baseball not 2 or 3 years after his post season success. Pat Borders was out of the game or just barely in the game right after his success. I'd rather that good hitters were praised, not necessarily "clutch" hitters.

 

That's why it pains me to end, when people like Chris Russo praise players like Tony Womack as a "winning" player. During the recent Yankee slide, Russo and Francessa have given Womack a free pass because "He'll come up big in a crucial spot, there's no problem there" I was loving it last year when supposedly "unclutch" pitcher Keith Foulke had a great post season to shut those two guys up.

That's the biggest problem with the clutch player argument. It is not that it does not exist, but that analysts will often label players as "clutch" in the absense of evidence that the player is any good. Earlier this year, I heard an opposing team's radio announcer refer to David Bell as "clutch," I guess since he gets a bunch of RBIs batting behind Bobby God, Jim Thome and Pat Burrell.

 

It's a farce when players like Womack are labeled as clutch. If he's got a special ability to hit in difficult situations, why doesn't he hit well in easy situations? Is he lazy otherwise? The second half of the argument, that a player can wilt under the pressure, is a possibility. However, I would think that is also a trait that a player can learn as he progresses.

Why are the Nationals playing so well? Their pitching doesn't seem to have been outstanding and their offense has been mediocre for the most part. Yet they're in first place and look like contenders at the moment.

Could you give me a heads up on what I should expect out of Placido Polanco? I've seen his basic stats, but haven't seen him play too much. Will he help the Tigers go over the top in the quest to ever be a .500+ team?

Why are the Nationals playing so well? Their pitching doesn't seem to have been outstanding and their offense has been mediocre for the most part. Yet they're in first place and look like contenders at the moment.

The Nationals now sport a 22-9 record at home. The main benefit of the Nationals' success is the emergence of Nick Johnson as an elite hitter. The Nationals' bullpen is outstanding, as five relievers sport ERAs of 3.00 or under. I do still believe the Nationals will fade.

 

Could you give me a heads up on what I should expect out of Placido Polanco? I've seen his basic stats, but haven't seen him play too much. Will he help the Tigers go over the top in the quest to ever be a .500+ team?

Placido Polanco is a damned good ballplayer, and a fine addition to the Detroit Tigers. He is a contact hitter that does not walk often, but also does not strike out either. He hits for a good average, has some pop, and can play the entire infield. Polanco is also one of the smartest players I have ever seen. If the defense makes a mistake, Polanco will exploit it. Since Polanco is replacing Omar Infante in the lineup, it should pay dividends. The only weakness is that he is a free agent after this year.

Al, considering how many pitchers and players in general ending up on the DL, is it safe to make a guess that quite a few of them are suffering from "juice" withdrawals that are making them prone to injury? I ask simply because I think its beyond a little nuts that many profile players all ended up getting injuries at the same time in the same year. I do believe I asked about this once before, but looking at it now, is it fair to say more than likely looking back?

God I hate conspiracy theories.

Agreed. I generally do not subscribe to those theories, especially since the young sluggers (Adam Dunn, Albert Pujols, Pat Burrell, etc.) appear fine. It is likely more the fault of aging than anything.

While I guess I could agree, I just find way too many people ending up on the DL for my liking this year. I don't mean to be a conspiritorist theorist, but everyone hitting that "aging" period just doesn't sit well with me as a suitable answer.