An interesting look at the Playoffs…

I just found a very interesting report created by Information Builders. It compares the salaries of all the post season players with their production. The example they use is that Yadi basically outperformed Albert in the NLCS in batting and yet is making only 1% of the teams payroll while Albert is making 23%. While I dont think these stats mean a whole lot its definitely interesting to look at. I still cant believe Jimmy Edmonds had 10 RBI this post season. Maybe we SHOULD bring him back… that’s a post for another time. Anyway, enjoy the report!

Advertisements

An absolute MUST READ!

I don’t know if you have heard it or not, but its only been one day since the Cardinals won the Series (I still have trouble realizing that its actually true) but I’ve already heard the grumblings about an 83 win (in the regular season) team doesn’t deserve to win. The system is broken, they say. This wasnt a "real" World Series.


Well, ESPN.com’s Jason Stark answers those arguments masterfully. All baseball fans should read it. Whether you’re a Cardinal fan (like me) who wants to be able to enjoy the improbable victory, or you’re a fan who was doing some of the grumbling, READ IT.

One point Stark doesn’t mention, that Tony LaRusa made was that in baseball a 90 win team is said to have a good year. Not great, not historic by any means, but a good year none the less. Well if you count the 83 wins the Cardinals had in the regular season, and add the 11 games they won in the post season, and you (at least should) come up with 94 wins, which is only 4 fewer than the mighty Yankees won (including the post season). After accounting for the fact that the Cardinals actually played one fewer regular season games than the Yankees (due to a rain-out), and the gap could have been narrowed to 3. Sorry, but I don’t remember the last time someone grumbled about a World Series winner who won 3 fewer games than the "best team" in baseball do you?

Didn’t think so.

Tie goes to the Runner!

Now I’ll admit, I’m usually pretty biased while watching Cardinal games, but usually after watching the replay I admit when I’m wrong. That being said, the Cardinals got hosed on the call to end the first inning. After verlander had walked the bases loaded, Ronnie Belliard grounded a ball up the middle. Guillen fielded it in the hole and threw a one hopper to first. Sean Casey scooped the ball up and the umpire punched the less than fleet footed Belliard out. The only problem is, he was safe. Belliard beat out the throw by about half a step and even if he didn’t, a tie is supposed to go to the runner. I know its early, but that blown call cost the Cardinals at least two runs if not more.

As I type this Yadi just smacked a leadoff single so lets hope this is a sign of things to come.

GO CARDS!

EDIT: Eckstein Delivers again! A screamer down the third base line and a throwing error by Inge, Cardinals lead 1-0 with a man on second. Lets Go Dunc (and hopefully Pujols)!!

Leyland not a “Gamblin” guy…

Jim Leyland has chosen to start the rookie Justin Verlander tonight in win-or-go home game 5. While I figured he would go with the veteran Rogers, this decision should come as no suprise and certainly shouldn’t be causing as much uproar as it has been so far. Verlander was Leyland’s choice for game 1 and remember, the Tigers, unlike the Cardinals, had a week off and were able to set their rotation however they wanted it. Leyland wanted to start Rogers in games 2 and 6 so that he would pitch in front of a home crowd both times. Apparently he thought Verlander would be better suited to pitch in front of a hostle crowd. So, why, with elimination on the line and so called "dirtgate" on everyone’s mind, would Leyland change his mind now? When asked about this Leyland made a point of saying that the Tigers need to win three games, not one. Just getting the series back to Detroit is NOT what Leyland is managing for. He’s putting his team in the best position possible to stage a ’68 like comeback against the Cardinals. For you conspiracy theorists out there, there could also be another reason Leyland is holding Rogers. If Leyland, an old school hard-nosed manager, was not aware until game two that Rogers was cheating (and personally I don’t believe Leyland would have allowed it to happen) then perhaps Leyland’s love of the game (and maybe a bit of anger at Rogers) played a roll in this decision as well?

However, just like saving your closer in the late innings for when you have a lead, you might not make it to that point. The 2006 World Series could very easily end without Rogers getting another chance to dazzle us all with his "dirt" covered hand. What a shame that would be…