Worst Team in WS History?

[GOOCH]

Hey, RedZone folks. Really enjoyed your game threads. Alot of folks expressed disappointment at an 83-win team going to the Series. But let me suggest that perhaps doing so suggests win-loss record is a better measure of team quality than it really is. Luck can factor strongly in the difference between an 83 win team and a 90 win team. Consider that the Cardinals were 19-27 in one run games in 2006....and that the outcome of one-run games is very much a matter of luck. Consider, also that the 2004 Cardinal team went 29 - 20 in one run games. Flip those results and the 2006 Cardinals are a 92 win team... and the 2004 Cardinals are a 94 win team. I'm not suggesting that these teams were equal (if they had been .500 in one-run games, the 06 Cards would have been an 88 win team and the 04 Cards would have been a 99 win team)...but I would suggest the 06 Cards aren't quite as bad as their 83 win season might indicate. D.GOOCH

[Patrick Bateman]

781 RS
762 RA

I don't think the Cards were especially unlucky. Based on RS-RA, they basically got what they deserved.

[westofyou]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=5638

The bigger problem, frankly, is that this year’s iteration of the Cardinals just isn’t very good. The team finished the regular season with an Elo Rating of 1484, which is below the average of 1500. Although that rating has since risen to 1507 as a result of the Cardinals’ postseason success, this nevertheless represents the lowest Elo Rating for a team entering the World Series in my database, which goes back to 1960. In fact, you can make a good case that the 2006 Cardinals are the worst team to ever play in a World Series, since the two-league, one-winner structure of elder days would have prevented an 83-78 entity from ever playing in October.

Nevertheless, Cardinals fans can find some hope in the fact that the second-worst team ever to play in the World Series, the 1987 Twins (1514 Elo Rating after the LCS), went on to win the damned thing, beating none other than the Cardinals. And for a team that played so flatly for much of the year, the Cardinals have genuinely sparkled in the postseason, as four of their seven October victories have been by at least three runs.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by westofyou

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=5638

But the team as it stands right now is greatly improved by the emergence/growth of their bullpen arms. In other words, this "iteration" of the Cards is much better in the bullpen department since the removal of Izzy (just as the Reds were better when they removed Griffey and Clayton from the lineup); this isn't the same Cards lineup as it was in June.

[LINEDRIVER]

The 1973 Mets, who were in last place in the NL East on August 17, got hot and eventually won the divison title with a record of 82-79.

The Mets stayed hot and won the NL pennant by defeating the NL West leading Reds who racked up a regurlar season record of 99-63!!!

As a longtime devoted Reds' fan, I was happy to see Oakland win the World Series by beating the Mets in 7 games.

[OnBaseMachine]

Gooch, you are one of the very few Cards fan who I actually like, but I have to disagree with you on this post. The Cardinals really are a bad baseball team. Their record says so, and their run differential says so. Their rotation is horrible, and the offense isn't anything special. The Cardinals would have finished 10 games below .500 if the NL hadn't been so bad this year.

[westofyou]

First-order winning percentage is computed using actual runs scored and allowed. Second-order winning percentage uses equivalent runs scored and allowed, based on run elements (hits, walks, total bases, etc.) and the scoring environment (park and league adjustments). Third-order winning percentage adjusts for the quality of the opponent's hitting and pitching via EqA allowed and opponents' EqA.

Of the 204 teams to advance to the World Series, this year's Cardinals go right to the top--or bottom--of this list, the Fall Classic participants with the worst third-order winning percentage:

2006 St. Louis Cardinals: 	.471
1987 Minnesota Twins: 		.488
1973 New York Mets: 		.511
1959 Los Angeles Dodgers:  	.522
1997 Cleveland Indians: 	.525
1984 San Diego Padres: 		.528
1985 Kansas City Royals: 	.528
2000 New York Yankees: 		.530
1961 Cincinnati Reds: 		.532
2000 New York Mets 		.535
1964 St. Louis Cardinals 	.535

Only one of these teams was unfortunate to turn up on the larger mismatchup list we're discussing today, the 1961 Reds. Half of these clubs became World Champions. Technically, it's more than half, since only one winner was going to come out of the 2000 World Series. (It is no wonder that nobody paid much attention to the first Subway Series in over four decades--it wasn't just that it was New York-centric, it was also arguably the worst World Series matchup in history.)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...925c0de1297802

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by westofyou

First-order winning percentage is computed using actual runs scored and allowed. Second-order winning percentage uses equivalent runs scored and allowed, based on run elements (hits, walks, total bases, etc.) and the scoring environment (park and league adjustments). Third-order winning percentage adjusts for the quality of the opponent's hitting and pitching via EqA allowed and opponents' EqA.

2006 St. Louis Cardinals: 	.471
1987 Minnesota Twins: 		.488
1973 New York Mets: 		.511
1959 Los Angeles Dodgers:  	.522
1997 Cleveland Indians: 	.525
1984 San Diego Padres: 		.528
1985 Kansas City Royals: 	.528
2000 New York Yankees: 		.530
1961 Cincinnati Reds: 		.532
2000 New York Mets 		.535
1964 St. Louis Cardinals 	.535

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...925c0de1297802

Hey, someone agrees with me about the 2000 World Series being the worst in my lifetime!

[GAC]

What is also interesting is that these two teams, over the last 50 regular season games of the '06 season, were the worst (#1 and #2) as far as won-loss records in MLB.

[GOOCH]

Folks,

Here is what I would argue. For *alot* of the regular season, the Cardinals were a bad team. They were, in fact, a worse team than an 83 win regular season would indicate. For the bulk of the Summer, this was a sub .500 team. However, as Don Rumsfeld has noted, you go to war with the army you have...not the army you want. And that's what the Cardinals did. Why were they so bad? They had injured players that spent *waaay* too many games starting for the Cards. Izzy blew save after save because he was trying to pitch on an arthritic hip. Mulder blew game after game trying to pitch with a bumb shoulder. We spent two months without Jim Edmonds. We spent two months without David Eckstein (and about 4 weeks of him trying to play through post-concussion syndrome...he played horribly). And Rolen cost us down the stretch by playing with a fatigued shoulder. And, oh yes, we kept trotting out Jason Marquis day after day...despite the fact that he sucks. Oh....he sucks bad.

Well, those aren't the Cardinals you are seeing in the playoffs. You are looking at a Cardinals team with a now-tested and *dominant* closer in Adam Wainwright. You are seeing a team with a solid set-up man (who spent most of the regular season closing for the Memphis Redbirds) who pitches well against lefties and righties in Josh Kinney. And you see two lefty setup men who pitched like rookies for most of the regular season but have pitched like established veterans since the post-season started. As for offense, Jim Edmonds has returned to form and is contributing. Eck has yet to contribute, but he's taking tough at-bats and is playing a good short. Rolen seems to have recovered. And Chris Duncan, another guy we only had for half a season, is contributing with his bat.

This is not the team that stumbled to 83 games. Had we had this team intact for most of the season, we wouldn't have only won 83 games. This team has more akin to the 100 win teams of 04' and 05' than it does to the regular season 06' Cards. D.GOOCH

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by GOOCH

Folks,

Here is what I would argue. For *alot* of the regular season, the Cardinals were a bad team. They were, in fact, a worse team than an 83 win regular season would indicate. For the bulk of the Summer, this was a sub .500 team. However, as Don Rumsfeld has noted, you go to war with the army you have...not the army you want. And that's what the Cardinals did. Why were they so bad? They had injured players that spent *waaay* too many games starting for the Cards. Izzy blew save after save because he was trying to pitch on an arthritic hip. Mulder blew game after game trying to pitch with a bumb shoulder. We spent two months without Jim Edmonds. We spent two months without David Eckstein (and about 4 weeks of him trying to play through post-concussion syndrome...he played horribly). And Rolen cost us down the stretch by playing with a fatigued shoulder. And, oh yes, we kept trotting out Jason Marquis day after day...despite the fact that he sucks. Oh....he sucks bad.

Well, those aren't the Cardinals you are seeing in the playoffs. You are looking at a Cardinals team with a now-tested and *dominant* closer in Adam Wainwright. You are seeing a team with a solid set-up man (who spent most of the regular season closing for the Memphis Redbirds) who pitches well against lefties and righties in Josh Kinney. And you see two lefty setup men who pitched like rookies for most of the regular season but have pitched like established veterans since the post-season started. As for offense, Jim Edmonds has returned to form and is contributing. Eck has yet to contribute, but he's taking tough at-bats and is playing a good short. Rolen seems to have recovered. And Chris Duncan, another guy we only had for half a season, is contributing with his bat.

This is not the team that stumbled to 83 games. Had we had this team intact for most of the season, we wouldn't have only won 83 games. This team has more akin to the 100 win teams of 04' and 05' than it does to the regular season 06' Cards. D.GOOCH

Exactly.

Teams, like hominids, evolve. In June the Cardinals were Java Man. In October Homo sapiens. It's that simple. Dumping Izzy meant they stood upright and mastered the use of the opposable thumb.

(I think the Reds will see a similar evolutionary moment when Griffey--the vestigial tail--is removed).

[OnBaseMachine]

Well, if the Reds players hadn't gotten injured too then we would have won 101 games, beating the Cardinals out by one game.

[OnBaseMachine]

The Cardinals would probably have been 20 games below .500 if their was such a thing as HGH testing.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine

The Cardinals would probably have been 20 games below .500 if their was such a thing as HGH testing.

Outside of Pujols who do you think is using HGH?

[OnBaseMachine]

Chris Duncan comes to mind. Here is a guy with a career .749 OPS minor league OPS who just came out out of no where to post a .950+ OPS with the Cardinals? Not often you see a bad minor leaguer come up and post an OPS 200 points higher than his minor league average.