Ok FCB, serrious question for you. The Cards replaced Sidney Ponsone with Jeff Weaver. The same Jeff Weaver you both called a turd and complemented Krivsky for passing on. The same Jeff Weaver of the 5-4 record and 5.18ERA with the Cards (a stunning 5-14 record with an 5.76ERA for all of 2006). So they replaced dreck with slightly better than dreck.
Yet....when Krivsky replaced White with Yan (or was it Mayes) you hammered him saying that if you can't replace crap with solid performance it's a waste of time.
For the Cards it's stellar evaluation of tallent that lead them to the WS but with Krivsky he couldn't find tallent if he fell over it? Why the seeming double standard?
It doesn't matter. They did good enough to win the division and qualify them for post-season. That is all that counts.
I don't see you making much hay about the Mets racking up wins in such a horrible league that obviously inflated their value. Who were all those victories against?
I get the feeling that you somehow think post-season assignments need to be awarded at the end of the regular season by what is reflected "on paper".
That is your problem.... you look on paper ONLY to form your position, and definitively state that "these teams should win and deserve to win". Anything less is an injustice.
But the fact of the matter is they aren't in the AL, and it is inconsequential. Mote point.The Cards would have been 10 games under .500 in the AL.
Then this won't make you happy....Quite simply, the best team did not win.
More slobbering.The Cardinals won the WS because Pedro and Floyd got hurt.
It can't be proven that IF they had been in there the Mets would have won. And it's not the Card's fault they were injured. Nor should it lessen their victory.
Players like Rolen and Edmonds were playing at less then 100%, and struggled, as well as other Cards players, with injuries all season. Think that could have contributed at all to them only garnering 83 wins?
Or was that only a factor with the Mets?
Last edited by GAC; 10-28-2006 at 11:55 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
The Mets won 95 games, the Cardinals 83. The Mets took advantage of a weak league.
http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/i...lynews0826.jpg
It wasn't stellar evaluation for the Cards. Somehow, someway they got Weaver turned around.
I still contend that had Weaver been acquired by any of the 29 other teams, he would have been the Jeff Weaver the Angels saw all season long. What can I say? Dave Duncan's an alchemist. But that doesn't mean Jeff Weaver's a good pickup necessarily.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
Well....congrats, Cards, I guess...
I couldn't do that for the Steelers
The logic breaks down on a ton of levels, not just from my perspective. I guess ultimately it's silly to even compare a pitching staff from 1975 (who struck out essentially NO ONE) to a pitching staff of today. Had Chris Carpenter pitched in the mid-70s, he'd have more Cy Young awards than Cy Young had wins (sarcasm--don't take literally). Comparing the pitchers of today to then is silly. That's where I went wrong.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
I really should work for BP: I essentially made all of those points BEFORE they played the games.
*Pats himself on the back*
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
The Cards were bad in June. The Braves less so. I reserve the right to change my mind--teams aren't static over the course of a season, ya know.
(Unless you're the Reds; then you follow the same trajectory every year: false sense of talent and accomplishment that fades like a Pierre Cardin interior)
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
And of course, having key players like Pujols, Rolen, Edmonds, and various members of the pitching staff, struggling with injury and spending time on the DL didn't contribute at all to them only winning 83 games right? They wouldn't have won any more with them healthy and in there.
It only affected the Mets.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |