Skip to content

Quote of the Day: Tony La Russa on “Moneyball”

Oct 5, 2011, 8:25 AM EDT

St. Louis Cardinals v Arizona Diamondbacks Getty Images

Well, it’s the quote of yesterday anyway.  La Russa was asked why he put Lance Berkman in left field and Allen Craig in right field for Game 3 on Sunday night.  His answer:

“It’s my tribute to Moneyball. I’m not a big Moneyball fan. I have this little place, don’t have a big place. So what we do is we take the square footage between the right field line and center field and the square footage and from left field to center field, divide that by pi and we multiply it by bulls***, and then we pick the dugout. The field that’s closest to the dugout and that’s where Lance plays.”

“Multiply it by bulls***” would probably be the name of my fantasy team if I played fantasy baseball.

  1. bleedgreen - Oct 5, 2011 at 8:31 AM

    Sounds like Tony has a sore hiney after being out managed last night. “What? Charlie Freakin Manuel used more bullpen pitchers than me? THIS CAN NOT STAND!”

    • fearlessleader - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM

      Or….maybe he was making a funny? TLR made the quote BEFORE the game, not after it.

  2. proudlycanadian - Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM

    Edit function Craig. Tony was quoted as saying bulls**** yet you used buls**** as the name of your putative fantasy team. By the way, my spell checker allowed bulls*** but questioned buls****.

    I am waiting for Tony to write his own book to outline his thoughts on baseball.

    • thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:41 AM

      Well, he technically “collaborated” and didn’t “write”. Spoiler alert: his thoughts on baseball are really stupid.

  3. paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 8:48 AM

    Of course LaRussa isn’t a Moneyball fan, because you can’t use market inefficiencies to identify guys that are scrappy, and “know how to win”, and “play the game the right way”, or TOOTBLAN. To know those things, you have to watch a guy play, see that he doesn’t have power, on-base skills, range, or a strong arm…and that his uniform is dirty…you can’t put a number on those things.

    This anti-information and anti-learning attitude is exactly what has him using 1980s strategy to lose games in the 20-teens.

    • spudchukar - Oct 5, 2011 at 1:17 PM

      Yeah, like Ryan Theriot.

  4. easports82 - Oct 5, 2011 at 8:51 AM

    Awesome quote. Did he follow it up with telling the reporters to get off his lawn?

  5. kvanhorn87 - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:00 AM

    I have no clue and I admit it. Did I miss something with Moneyball? Did they ever win a world series using their strategy? If not, what is the big deal? Hard$* for stats people?

    Clueless not sarcastic.

    • paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:14 AM

      The A’s did not, but other teams that are in better position to exploit market inefficiencies have done so (2004 RS, for example)….because the more money you have the easier it is to exploit inefficiencies….and as soon as teams with money started looking for inefficiencies, that made it more difficult for less wealthy teams to use it.

      Moneyball is NOT about stats, per se…it is about taking advantage of under-valued aspects of the game that help you win. You do need stats to evaluate what is under-valued, but it is not a stat-driven approach, analysis is just the tool….the questions and approaches still come from baseball knowledge.

    • Chris Fiorentino - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM

      It also helped that they happened to draft 3 pretty OK pitchers within a 3 year span…their names…Hudson, Zito, Mulder.

      In the chapter about Chad Bradford, the author is quote as saying this, which is about the only thing that gives the credit to those three pitchers…

      “a top executive for the San Diego Padres would say that the reason the Oakland A’s win so many games with so little money is that “Billy got lucky with those pitchers. And he did. ”

      While the book is a nice story about exactly what paper says above, the fact is that the success of the team is attributable to “Billy getting lucky with those pitchers”…and even the author agrees.

      • Mark - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM

        You’re right that Zito, Mulder & Hudson were a big part of their success. However, it’s worth pointing out that one of the strategies Beane was focusing on was college players, and all 3 of these pitchers were college draftees.

        I believe Hudson was drafted before Beane’s tenure, but the first two drafts Beane had (1998/1999) was when Mulder & Zito were taken. The 1999 draft wasn’t especially deep, so while you can argue the A’s got “lucky”, at least in the first round the only other decent major leaguers taken after Zito were Ben Sheets, Brett Myers, Brian Roberts and at one point Alex Rios.

        While those 3 pitchers were a big part, it’s once again worth pointing out that over an 8 year period, the A’s averaged 94 wins while posting one of the lowest payrolls in the game. Peaking at 103 wins.And as good as those 3 guys are, you still need a core of guys around them to win that many games.

        Cots contracts only goes back to 2000, but the A’s had a payroll during this time of 32M in 2000 (where they won 91 games and made the playoffs) and a high of 62M in 2006 at the end of their playoff run (in which they won 93 and made it to the ALCS).

        That last paragraph is why it’s so impressive. Working on a budget of 32-62M they averaged 94 wins over 8 years. I’m going off memory here but they had the fourth or fifth best record over that time, which is pretty crazy when you realize how little they were spending.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:07 AM

        Mark, I agree with the focus on drafting college players. That was something that probably should have been common sense to most guys, but it wasn’t and Beane deserves credit for that.

        However, I believe your numbers regarding the wins are pretty skewed.

        From 2000-2004, while Hudson, Zito and Mulder were with the big-league ballclub, the team average 97 wins a year. In 2005, the first year they did not have all three, they won 88 and were out of the playoffs. From 2005-present, they have averaged 80 wins. Billy Beane has been there the entire time, right?

        I’m not saying Beane deserves no credit. Obviously, he had some great ideas, and the college player drafting rule was very smart. But I just think that the whole “The A’s won because they took advantage of market inefficiencies” idea is just overrated. They won because they drafted three great pitchers and rode those horses to 483 wins over a 5-year period. That’s the main reason…everything else is just window dressing.

      • Mark - Oct 5, 2011 at 12:06 PM

        How are my numbers skewed? I started in 1999 (when they first made the playoffs) and ended in 2006 (when they last missed the playoffs. They didn’t have the big 3 in 1999 when they first made the playoffs.

        They had an 8 year period of success as being one of the most successful teams in baseball. Pretty much all non-Yankee teams are going to need to go into a rebuild period after that.

        The fact is that having the best pitching staff in baseball isn’t good enough to make the playoffs. Did you know the 08 Blue Jays led the AL in ERA, by a fair margin (3.49, compared to the next best team at 3.82)? It’s true, they did. And that was a pretty good staff too, led by Halladay, a young Shaun Marcum and they even got a pretty solid season out of Burnett. And yet they came in fourth place. Simply having 3 good pitchers or a dominant pitching staff isn’t enough to make it to the playoffs.

        Did the A\s trio play a significant role? Absolutely. But to argue that those 3 guys alone put them in the playoffs, and to ignore the market inefficiencies (or call it window dressing) is completely missing the point. The A’s had some extremely well rounded teams, with good offenses and strong bullpens. They don’t come close to competing if Beane doesn’t exploit the fact that closers are overpaid, that certain skills are undervalued, and the importance of compensation picks. Especially on a brutal 50-60M budget.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Oct 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM

        You are talking about the AL East vs the AL West. Plus, when I said you skewed the #’s I meant that you took the 4 big years and combined them with the 4 lesser years. Since 1999, they have averaged 80 wins. Billy Beane has been there all that time. The difference between this team and the 2003 team is Hudson, Zito and Mulder. If I had to go on a % basis, I would say

        90% Hudson, Zito Mulder
        10% everything else

        We’ll just agree to disagree here because I see what you are saying, I just don’t agree.

    • Alex K - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:27 AM

      Moneyball was about finding market inefficiencies and getting valuable assets (players with certain skills) for not a lot of money. The book could have just as easily been about lumberjacks and what are undervalued skills that could make one lumberjack cost less than another.

      The fact that they never won a World Series doesn’t really matter. The best team doesn’t always win the World Series.

  6. Jonny 5 - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:05 AM

    Umm, is this enough proof that his stupid pitching changes have nothing to do with stats? Because it seems some people think along those lines. For some unknown reason. IT’S THE MATCH UPS!!!

    • Jonny 5 - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM

      The Rh/Lh matchups!!!!!

    • paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:10 AM

      Exactly, LaRussa values matchups more than anything…and when he does use stats to determine matchups or who plays against what pitcher, they are based on ridiculously small sample sizes (typically < 50 PA, which isn't enough to tell you anything about anything).

      LaRussa is like a typical administrator with an active mind, little to do, and a need to justify his position and salary….he actively looks for reasons to make decisions/changes where there are no needs, resulting in changes that have no net positive effect and that are more likely to have net negative effects.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:13 AM

        Really? No net positive effect? Sorta’ like the entire month of September when he pulled all the strings to get the Cardinals to where they are now?

      • paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:18 AM

        If you can explain to me how taking out your best players in the 7th inning makes your team better….I’m all ears. Mostly, they won in spite of LaRussa pulling out better players (Berkman, Freese) for worse players (Descalso, Chambers, Patterson)…and his incessant need to have lefties face lefties even if the pitcher (like Rhodes) can not get lefties out anymore.

        They won in September because a lot of guys played out of their minds…not because of anything LaRussa did (and often in spite of it)….unless you want to put the massive dive in August on LaRussa (which I don’t and never have)….then you can’t give him credit for winning streak either. The players sucked in August and were great in September…that was it.

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:20 AM

        Man they are still playing like their asses are on fire too! I bet you’re proud.

      • paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM

        Frustrated is more like it. Dude….just stay. out. of. the. way…..put the best guys on the field and let them play….it really is that easy.

      • flavius217 - Oct 5, 2011 at 12:51 PM

        @stlouis1baseball — BAHAHAHAHAHA The Cardinals made the playoffs despite all his look-at-me button-pushing and lever-pulling. Both the teams’ losses in the NLDS have TLR’s fingerprints all over them.

  7. stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:15 AM

    Outstanding quote! The guy sometimes drives me crazy with his tendency to over-think things. But I wouldn’t trade him for anyone.

    • paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:19 AM

      I would trade him for a sack of potatoes….anything that would stay out of the way with dumb “strategies” like sac bunts, IBBs, double switches and matchup obsessions.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:28 AM

        Sac bunts are “dumb strategies?” Double switches are a “dumb strategies?” You can’t really believe this Paper. If so…you are rooting for the wrong league (in my opinion). So making a double switch late in a game that takes your pitchers spot out of the batting order dumb? I call this scenario baseball. I have the feeling that you wouldn’t (under ANY circumstance) give TLR credit for anything…regardless of the situation. With all this in mind…please know I am fully on board with you in regards to the instances late in games where Lance or Freese’s bats are not in the lineup due to some “brilliant” defensive move by TLR. It drives me nuts. But I also have no problem giving him his due (such as the entire month of September when D.D. was out and Tony made all the calls…lineup, batting order, pitching rotation, bullpen, the whole gamut).

      • nolanwiffle - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:29 AM

        How does one account for the 2700+ wins, 5 World Series appearances, and Manager of the Year awards in both leagues?

        He seems to know what he’s doing from where I sit.

      • thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:43 AM

        Yes, sac bunts are very dumb strategies. Just google “sac bunt stupid” and read the *countless* studies done to show that giving up an out to slightly increase the chances of a run scoring actually *decreases* the number of runs scored over time. When it 1 run worth more than 2 (meant to be rhetorical, but I guess in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game)?

        Tony is also 2nd all time in losses, just so you know.

      • nolanwiffle - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:52 AM

        Just as Tom Landry has the second most losses in NFL history. Stick around long enough……

      • Francisco (FC) - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:12 AM

        Stick around long enough……

        And you’ll also eventually win 2700+ games? :) Just saying you can’t use that argument to wave away the losses and not have it thrown in your face with respect to wins.

        I’m not sure how we can quantify the effect of the manager on wins and losses, sometimes it’s obvious, sometimes not. I mean Francona managed the Phillies in the late 90’s and was a perennial loser and with the BoSox he has two rings and a winning record. A lot of it has to do with the quality of the teams he had to manage, but I’m sure somewhere in there his influence could also be seen as manager.

      • paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:39 AM

        Exactly. LaRussa has the 3rd most wins and the 3rd most losses. His winning % is nothing special at all. His best teams were LOADED with talent, the late 80’s A’s and early 2000 Cardinals were freaking STACKED. He has managed for 33 years. There are now 30 teams in MLB, there were 26 when he started. An “average” team should have won 1.2 WS titles over that time and appeared in 2.4 WS….and he has much greater than average talent during his years as manager.

        And yes, sac bunts are dumb strategies unless 1) the pitcher is up or 2) you need 1 run and ONLY 1 run….any other time…it has a negative effect…and that is when it is successful, which it often is not.

        Double switches that take out better player for worse players are always dumb. Freese is a far better hitter and a better fielder than Descalso…there is no situation where replacing the better player with the lesser player increases your chances of winning. None.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM

        Leyland’s bunt yesterday in the first inning against A J Burnett had to be the single dumbest sac bunt in the history of the game. You have a guy who sucks, walked the leadoff hitter, and did I mention SUCKS, and you hand an out to him? Leyland should be put in jail for that type of stupidity.

      • paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM

        Exactly, Chris. I shook my head at that move….all kinds of stupid, even if he did get it down, which he didn’t.

      • flavius217 - Oct 5, 2011 at 12:54 PM

        @nolanwiffle — the Appeal to Authority is a specious argument.

      • nolanwiffle - Oct 5, 2011 at 1:40 PM

        I think you’re late for court, Counselor.

  8. kvanhorn87 - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM

    Like I said I am not familiar with the INS and outs. But for someone to say that not winning a world series doesn’t matter, I find that naive, at best. Isn’t the point to win the championship? If you want to have credence and be regarded on a public note as someone who revolutionized the way players are chosen, don’t you have to win something. Obviously, I am wrong. Darn you Brad Pitt, I mean Billy Beane. On another note I am always skeptical of a grown man going by any names like Billy, Danny, etc.

    • nolanwiffle - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:46 AM

      Jimmy Dean makes one hell of a breakfast sausage.

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:23 AM

        He does, but he can’t compete with Bob Evans. Seriously though. guhhhhhhh………

    • Alex K - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:18 AM

      If I am “naive at best” what is the worst case for me?

      I never said the point isn’t to win Championships. I said the fact that they never won the World Series doesn’t really matter (I was talking about the overall point of the book). There are plenty of times when the best team doesn’t win the World Series – that doesn’t mean they weren’t the best team. All a GM can do is build the best team possible and hope that they win.

      The A’s did win something…they won a whole hell of a lot of games and a lot of people took note.

    • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:54 AM

      Paper…the double switches comment was in direct rebuttal of you calling double switches dumb. Double switches are NOT dumb when it results in your pitchers spot in the batting order being removed from the equation late in the game. You made a blanket statement and I countered with an example of when it is the right move. Sac bunts are not dumb when runs are at a premium and it is obvious that you have to maximum your potentially one or two chances. As for Descalso…that is the second time I have seen you claim he is inferior defensively when compared to Freese. I can’t let this one go because it is ludicrous. Other than Yadier….D.D. is the BEST player on the team (defensively). For example…you can bet your ass that 3 hopper over Freese’s head would have been fielded cleanly.

  9. thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM

    I don’t mean to question Tony’s math skills, but it seems like their is a much easier to way to tell which “field” is closest to you dugout than multiplying square-footage by pi and such.

    Gotta love Tony’s comments, cause, you know…what an idiot. Ken Tremendous put it best when discussing 3 Nights In August: “The purported aim of the book is to show how brilliant La Russa is as a strategist. The actual accomplishment is to make one feel like one wouldn’t trust La Russa to take care of one’s cats, much less one’s baseball team.” For those who question this criticism, think all the way back to last night when he pinch hit for Jon Jay with Nick f**king Punto.

    • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:49 AM

      Yeah…you mean Jon Jay (who was hitless at that point)…and Nick Punto (who had what…3 or 4 hits his previous game)? Bad Mama sums it up. When it works it’s a great call when it doesn’t it his foolish. Yeah…hindsight.

      • thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:24 AM

        Yes, I don’t care if Punto is 3 for 4 the previous day. This is statistics 101. Don’t base decisions on small sample sizes. Jay has proven over and over that he is a *much* better hitter than Nick Punto. Nick Punto didn’t happen to turn into a better hitter in 4 plate appearances.

        Wanna have some fun with small sample sizes ? Take these two players:

        Player A: 134 PA, 4 HR, .233/.313/.371
        Player B: 81 PA, 4 HR, .311/.370/.541

        Would you pinch hit A for B in that scenario?
        Player A is a 30 game stretch for Frank Robinson in his 1966 triple crown season
        Player B is a 21 game stretch for Aubrey Huff is his rather terrible 2011 season.

      • Alex K - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:25 AM

        The right decision doesn’t always give you the right result. The wrong decision doesn’t always give you the wrong result.

      • thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:54 AM

        More sample size fun:
        A: 32 PA, 1 HR, .103/.188/.241
        B: 71 PA, 6 HR, .357/.366/.700

        A is 2001 Barry Bonds. B is a hot stretch of 2006 Jeff Francour. Bonds, of course, posted an OPS an astounding .637 higher than Francour’s.

  10. badmamainphilliesjamas - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:40 AM

    Managers are brilliant when their moves (or lack of moves) are successful, and idiots when they are not.
    IBB & you get out of the inning = great manager. IBB and the next guy jacks a grand slam = bad manager.
    Causality or coincidence?

    • drmonkeyarmy - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:50 AM

      IBB are seldom the proper move.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:05 AM

        I thought it was the right move last night. It forced Charlie to pinch hit for Cole (which I realize he was probably going to do anyway)…it also gave you a force out at 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Sure…Ben (last HR hit was freaking May) Francisco settled that though. But unlike many people who tried to make Cliff the focus after game #2…I give your pinch hitter all the credit. Jaime was throwing darts. He made one big mistake and Francisco took advantage of it. The Cardinals also left 14 guys on base. They had plenty of chances. As they say…it’s baseball.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM

        Here is why it was a bad move in my opinion. Hamels already had his arm in ice and wasn’t coming back in so the theory of knocking him from the game doesn’t hold. Chooch had never hit Garcia and hasn’t been swinging the bat well this series. The hit he had early in the game was a fluky hit. Garcia had been leaving the ball up that inning. The Victorino single was up. The ball Mayberry hit to right was up and probably gets drilled if he wasn’t trying to go the other way. The one pitch and I mean one pitch Francisco can handle is a navel high fastball. He has an upper cut swing. Garcia missed up and that was that.

      • badmamainphilliesjamas - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM

        It makes sense to play the odds….all I’m saying is that the verdict changes depending on the outcome.

        Clearly, it wasn’t a good move for Milwaukee to walk Goldschmidt.

      • paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM

        It does make sense to play the odds, you are 100% correct. What people (including LaRussa) do not realize is that the odds dictate that you almost never IBB anyone….if it is Pujols up with the pitcher on deck…you do it…otherwise, odds dictate to not put men on base because more often than not teams score more runs after an IBB than in situations where an IBB could have been issued but was not. This actually is not disputable, it is a fact supported by decades of data.

      • Francisco (FC) - Oct 5, 2011 at 12:06 PM

        Well it seemed to work for him against Ryan Howard. He’s just really terrible against Lefties. I mean career wise he’s never been really good against left handers, but this year he’s been awful.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Oct 5, 2011 at 1:42 PM

        I think Howard needs to close his stance a little more against Lefties. They all pitch him the same exact way…outside and low for strikes. Then he gets pissed and swings at the high heat because it looks so good after the other garbage.

        However, if that affects how bad he mashes Right-handers, then I say just leave the man alone. I expect him to destroy Jackson today. Nothing less than a bomb would make me happy against this guy. He is tailor-made for Howard.

    • thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:35 AM

      Wanna see some fun 2nd guessing? Head over to the STLToday message board and read what some of the “smartest fans in baseball” have to say. Some highlights include:

      -Jaime Garcia should have been pinch hit four (he was throwing a 2 hit shutout at the time)
      -Allen Craig should have bunted with the bases loaded and one out (!?!?!)
      -Molina’s passed ball cost the Cards the game
      -Theriot stopping at 3rd cost the Cards the game
      -It’s Pujols fault cause his hits came with the bases empty

      My take, LaRussa shouldn’t have pinched hit for Jay (though it likely wouldn’t have mattered) and intentional walks are almost always stupid. That being said, neither move

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:42 AM

        Molina’s passed ball was huge and Theriot stopping at 3rd did hurt (I mentioned as much to my Wife right after they happened). Everything else you listed is just plain stupid. I stay off the STL Today message board (pretty much for this reason). You get LeRoy talkin’ him some Cardianals ball while da’ barefooted, pregnant Ole’ Lady cooks him some supper. I recommend the Cardinals site. You will find the comments are far more insightful.

      • thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:57 AM

        Theriot would have been out by a mile. He was unsure if Mayberry was gonna catch the ball and held up.
        Theriot not reading the ball correctly and coming home hurt. The complaints I read though said that Oquendo should have sent Theriot despite the fact he would have been thrown out by a mile.

      • sparkycon - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:20 AM

        St. Louis is a great baseball town. There are smart baseball fans in every city, but having visited St. Louis on many occasions and seen games, they do have a terrific for the most part well informed fan base. Man, you people are harsh, and this is coming from a Yankee fan….

      • flavius217 - Oct 5, 2011 at 1:03 PM

        La Russa *should have* pinch-hit for Garcia in the sixth. Kid gave you six good innings (and was starting to elevate his pitches in the sixth), the bullpen has been throwing well, and there are two runners on in scoreless playoff game.

        But TLR, in his infinite, unimpeachable genius, allows his lefty pitcher to face a fellow portsider with men on base during a scoreless playoff game. He veers between infuriating overmanaging and infuriating passivity.

    • thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:37 AM

      Wanna see some fun 2nd guessing? Head over to the STLToday message board and read what some of the “smartest fans in baseball” have to say. Some highlights include:

      -Jaime Garcia should have been pinch hit four (he was throwing a 2 hit shutout at the time)
      -Allen Craig should have bunted with the bases loaded and one out (!?!?!)
      -Molina’s passed ball cost the Cards the game
      -Theriot stopping at 3rd cost the Cards the game
      -It’s Pujols fault cause his hits came with the bases empty

      Seriously, the whole “smartest fans in baseball” moniker needs to die right now.

      • thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:38 AM

        Double post! My screen re-loaded and I assumed I’d lost the information. Note: I’m a Cardinals fan and this was a pretty stupid move. Did I just prove my point?

  11. stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:57 AM

    Falcon: Personally, I don’t agree with that. When a game is very tight…and runs seem to be at a premium…that one run can win you the game (be it the 3rd, 5th 7th or 9th inning). Yep…Tony is #2 in losses. Win you Manage as long as he has you are gonna rack up some wins and losses. No dissagreement whatsoever. Pete Rose played baseball for 20+ years (so with this theory)…he is also gonna’ get a few hits. I choose to let TLR’s record speak for itself. The numerous playoff appearances, WS titles, Manager of the Year awards, etc… What are you and Paper going to do when he picks up his latest Manager of the Year award this year?

    • drmonkeyarmy - Oct 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM

      Probably the same thing when Jeter collects Gold Gloves left and right…shake their head.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:07 AM

        Hahaha! Yeah really.

    • Alex K - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:06 AM

      They will probably disagree with the selection if that happens.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:10 AM

        No…you think?

      • Alex K - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:22 AM

        You asked the question.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:32 AM

        Wow Alex. I realize I asked the question. I was using scarcasm. I thought it was obvious. Sorry to have bothered you with it.

      • Alex K - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:41 AM

        I knew you were being sarcastic I was too. I wasn’t bothered at all.

        We need a sarcasm font.

      • Francisco (FC) - Oct 5, 2011 at 12:09 PM

        I don’t have a font but you can borrow my sign *hands over sign*–>SARCASM

    • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:36 AM

      I hear you Monkey. I also thought Ruiz…while maybe not getting many hits this series has really hit some balls hard ( a couple of catches by Jon Jay in Center come to mind). Either way…a lack of offensive execution is what cost the Cardinals the game (in my opinion). 14 guys left on base…bases loaded with 1 out in the 8th. They had plenty of chances.

    • paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:45 AM

      I won’t do anything, because he won’t win it…you really think Kirk Gibson won’t get major credit for the D-Backs season?

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:04 AM

        Kirk Gibson absolutely deserves (and will recieve) major credit. I am just pointing out that a whole lot of people feel TLR ALSO deserves major credit for the absolutely wonderful job he has done this year.

  12. acerob2002 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM

    Craig, I honestly can’t believe that you don’t play fantasy baseball… Whats up??

  13. Jonny 5 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:25 AM

    Interesting investigation of the self proclaimed “best fans in baseball”

    • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:29 AM

      Not “self proclaimed” Jonny. I have heard plenty of people make that statement. Announcers, other fans, players, etc… I would probably get tired of hearing it too if I weren’t a Cardinals fan. So I can understand that it may get old for people.

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM

        Hey, I’m not one to make sweeping judgments. I have heard some St Louis fans say that, sometimes while looking down their noses towards Phillies fans. But I’m a big fan of not stereotyping an entire fan base, but allow me an opportunity to troll for a bit huh?? LOL!!

        Anyway, I was surprised by the findings actually.

    • fearlessleader - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM

      Going on StubHub is an “investigation” now? I’m a third-generation Cardinal obsessive who would donate a kidney to any member of the team if they asked, but that doesn’t mean I’ve necessarily got a spare $132 and a last-minute day off work to go to a ballgame, no matter how much I might want to.

      • Francisco (FC) - Oct 5, 2011 at 12:12 PM

        Wait… you have a spare kidney but not a spare $132?

  14. bleedgreen - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:37 AM

    How come no one has made mention of Pujols complaining about the shadows? Is this the first time he’s played a 5PM game in StL?

    • thefalcon123 - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:48 AM

      They actually complained about it earlier this year to. Why do the Cardinals keep proving Brandon Phillips’ point?

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:11 AM

        Come on Falcon. Your killing me. I am beginning to think you are an imposter.

    • stlouis1baseball - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM

      Complain? He was 4 – 5 w/ 3 doubles.

      • bleedgreen - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:12 AM

        I know. He was whining about how MLB would NEVER let the Yankees play in shadows.

  15. paperlions - Oct 5, 2011 at 10:48 AM

    Here is why Sac bunts are a bad idea…the main purpose is generally to ensure the runner advances and that a GIDP doesn’t happen. With men on this year the Cardinals have grounded into 169 DPs….which is a lot. They also had 269 non-IBB and 671 hits. Odds are better that the next guy up with do something to cause a multi-run inning to happen than GIDP.

    If it is late in the game and you need ONLY 1 run…fine, sac bunt with no outs…..otherwise, giving up that precious out reduced your teams chances of scoring runs and winning the game.

    • Jonny 5 - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM

      Not to mention an intentional walk negates the whole “staying out of a double play” thing. So there’s that. It’s still giving up an out as well. Whoops, you said that.

    • Chris Fiorentino - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:11 AM

      Leyland’s sac bunt yesterday was the single dumbest managerial decision in the history of baseball. There is nothing that could have been dumber than handing A.J. Burnett an out in the first inning AFTER a walk. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

      I defy anyone to give me a dumber managerial decision.

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:24 AM

        Pulling Bastardo after 1 out to use Lidge to get two outs maybe? 2 whole outs!!! Lidge!!!

      • Chris Fiorentino - Oct 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM

        I didnt like that move either, J5, but it pales in comparison to giving one of the worst pitchers around a free out in the first inning of a game where he walked the first batter. Did Leyland think it was going to be a pitcher’s duel? Seriously? I guess if it were Halladay/Carpenter I might…MIGHT…bunt the guy over in the first inning. But probably not even then.

        It is the dumbest managerial decision in the history of baseball. I’m still looking for any suggestions. I guess we will be getting a 10,000 word essay on how dumb it was from Joe Pos any minute now.

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 5, 2011 at 12:11 PM

        Word has it, Leyland was signaling for “smoke break” not “bunt” Common mistake…. 😉

      • nolanwiffle - Oct 5, 2011 at 12:30 PM

        Gene Mauch started Jim Bunning on two days rest three times in a three week period at the end of the epic phold in 1964.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Oct 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM

        That’s true, nolan, but 2 of those times was when they were in the midst of losing 10 in a row in their last 12 games. Dude panicked no question about it. But that isn’t as dumb as bunting against A. J. Burnett in the first inning.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Ramirez (2402)
  2. G. Stanton (2361)
  3. G. Springer (2340)
  4. C. Correa (2320)
  5. J. Baez (2303)