The one comment about the Cards makes two errors, imo. First, Petco is a different stadium. It is not cavernous. The Cards did not hit HRs, but most years they were near or above league average slugging because they rapped and legged out doubles and triples. That's not possible in a place like Petco. Second, even if it was, the Cards played in many stadiums similar to their own--Cincy, Pittsburgh, Philly, Houston, etc. Today's Padres, if they adopted the 80s Card approach, might not be nearly as successful out of Petco, even if it worked in Petco.

I think the answer is, as it was with the Rockies, to stop trying to let the ballpark dictate the strategy. The winning system is same as it ever was. Get on base. Drive the ball for extra bases. Get players who do those things and you score runs.

There's also one serious omission from the comments about the Running Redbird offense.
They played on Astroturf. Taken 1985, Vince Coleman (the poster boy for that style of offense) hit .305 at home and .231 away. In '86 those splits were .269/.189. In '87 he hit better on the road than at home (.275/.301) [home road OPS+ were equal], but in '88 it was .276/.241.
That he could chop the ball and leg out the high bounce of Busch turf was a big, big part of his game.

My guess is that some of you are saying, “But speed can also impact other parts of the game, like batting average and doubles.” You’re absolutely right. However, in an earlier posting we established that Petco Park isn’t batting average friendly. Furthermore, the Park is as tough on doubles as it has been on home runs. The fact of the matter is that despite the dimensions of the ballpark, fly balls go to die in Petco, which is also why defense in CF may not be quite as important as it would initially appear. I guess we can blame the perfect weather in San Diego.

It's funny.

I would interpret playing in a low-run environment as an endorsement of the critical need for good defense. One otherwise unnecessary run let in by subpar defense matters more in a low run environment, as manufacturing runs by using speed ont he bases matters more. And while it true that speed does not equal defense, it's equally true that all the great centerfielders, and almost all the great middle infielders, were very fast.

I am seeing the same data as DePodesta and coming to the exact opposite conclusion. It reminds me of "The Fenway Fallacy". That, because of the Wall, you needed to load up on right handed power hitters to take advantage of it. But that didn't turn out to be true. Pitchers could just pitch low and away and take that option away. You needed left handed power hitters because puitching low and away to them resulted in an opposite field double or homerun.

Let's not forget something else about those successful Cardinal teams: they got on base. In the seasons that they didn't lead the NL in OBP, they weren't successful.

Season, NL OBP Rank, Finish
1985: 1, Pennant
1986: 12, 3
1987: 1, Pennant
1988: 6, 5

The Padres are last in NL OBP.

It's funny.

I would interpret playing in a low-run environment as an endorsement of the critical need for good defense. One otherwise unnecessary run let in by subpar defense matters more in a low run environment, as manufacturing runs by using speed ont he bases matters more. And while it true that speed does not equal defense, it's equally true that all the great centerfielders, and almost all the great middle infielders, were very fast.


I don't think DePodesta is referencing a low run environment, Kevin, as much as the OF dimensions. You can have a low run environment for multiple reasons. If one of the reasons is that you have a postage stamp OF that reduces doubles and triples, then maybe you can place less emphasis on OF speed because even a moderately speedy OFer is going to get to basically every FB. If you have a low run environment because the fences are in Kalamazoo, then you may need more speed to cover a large OF and prevent doubles and triples.

The Cards did not hit HRs, but most years they were near or above league average slugging because they rapped and legged out doubles and triples.

The 1980s Cardinals:

Year, League SLG, STL SLG, STL League Rank

1981, .364, .377, 3/12
1982, .373, .364, 8/12
1983, .376, .384, 4/12
1984, .369, .351, 12/12
1985, .374, .379, 6/12
1986, .380, .327, 12/12
1987, .404, .378, 9/12
1988, .363, .337, 12/12
1989, .365, .363, 7/12

It is true that those Cardinals were a better-hitting team than a simple focus on the HR column would suggest. But overall they really weren't a league-average slugging team; sometimes they were, but not usually, and when that offense went south it would go to Tierro del Fuego.

What those Cardinals were tremendous at was getting on base.

The Whitey-run Cardinals:
(I'm quoting jwb & Steve here, while adding further info to their presentation.)
(It is pretty darned amusing that we averaged *eighth* in the league in slugging for our pennant years.)


It is true that those Cardinals were a better-hitting team than a simple focus on the HR column would suggest. But overall they really weren't a league-average slugging team; sometimes they were, but not usually, and when that offense went south it would go to Tierro del Fuego.

Year, League SLG, STL SLG, STL League Rank in SLG, STL Finish in League

1981, .364, .377, 3/12, 2 (screwed from playoffs by split-season ruling)
1982, .373, .364, 8/12, 1 (pennant, WS champs)
1983, .376, .384, 4/12, 8 (our pitching did poorly)
1984, .369, .351, 12/12, 4
1985, .374, .379, 6/12, 1 (pennant)
1986, .380, .327, 12/12, 3 (our pitching did quite well)
1987, .404, .378, 9/12, 1 (pennant)
1988, .363, .337, 12/12, 10
1989, .365, .363, 7/12, 5 (pitching was good)
1990, .383, .358, 11/12, 11

What those Cardinals were tremendous at was getting on base.

- - - - -

Let's not forget something else about those successful Cardinal teams: they got on base. In the seasons that they didn't lead the NL in OBP, they weren't successful.

Season, NL OBP Rank, Finish in League
1981: 2, 2 (screwed from playoffs by split-season ruling)
1982: 1, 1 (pennant, WS champs)
1983: 2, 8 (our pitching did poorly)
1984: 7, 4
1985: 1, 1 (pennant)
1986: 12, 3 (our pitching did quite well)
1987: 1, 1 (pennant)
1988: 6, 10
1989: 1, 5 (SLG was 7th, pitching was good)
1990: 8, 11