I think it's important NOT to forget that the Cardinals went 83-78 in part because they were running Ponson, Marquis and Mulder out there, and Isringhausen was having trouble.

Not hardly.

The Cardinals on May 31 were 34-19 (a 104-win pace over the entire schedule), while "running Ponson, Marquis, and Mulder out there". Even on July 26 - although by this time they had, in fact, stopped running Ponson and Mulder out there, the former because of ineffectiveness and the latter because of injury - they were 58-42, a 94-win pace.

Mulder was pitching effectively before he got hurt. Through May 22 he'd had eight quality starts in 10 outings, and was 5-2, 3.74. It's hard to tell what effect the back injury in early May might have had on his mechanics, but I would not be at all surprised if he didn't subtly alter his motion as a result.

-- MWE

I also forgot to mention how much I liked Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

Excellent book.

Also, as I am an optimist, I am hoping that Shelton, being only 26, gets things back together and improves.

I think Shelton's gone. Leyland really seems to hate him. Maybe they'll get some value in return.

#197: RDF top to bottom.

I also forgot to mention how much I liked Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

Excellent book.

At least explain the Loewen hate... although Keith Law on his chat said he expects Loewen to be a complete bust. He did improve his command over the course of the season.

What I will b*tch about, what I'm totally entitled to as a Tigers fan watching my team play in their first WS since I was 5, is the incredibly fluky way we lost last night. That was unbelievable.

After rejoicing last night I stayed up to watch Baseball Tonight and ESPN News and anything else I could find that would show the baseball stuff. After seeing the highlights over and over and started thinking "I can't imagine how upset I'd be if the Cardinals had lost that way."

So, Wale, have a good birthday. I hope not too good, of course.

As others have said, I think it's important NOT to forget that the Cardinals went 83-78 in part because they were running Ponson, Marquis and Mulder out there, and Isringhausen was having trouble. Those guys are gone right now, replaced by better pitchers.

The question is still this. So when we talk about the better team, should it be the one that was better for five months and 162 games, or the one that was better for three weeks?

What's your take on the league differences point (i.e. Suppan's ERA+ would be very different in the AL)?

I was basing it largely on production, which sidelines the league differences.

As for Suppan himself. . . the average starter has an ERA+ of 96. Suppan just had a season of 107 following a year of 120. Maybe he moves into a grey area between 2 & 3 starter or at worst 3rd starter. It takes an insane amount of league regression to make him a fourth starter in the AL. Forget calling the NL a AAAA league, you'd be calling them a AAA league. Just being able to post 190-210 innings a year in 30+ starts is a valued attribute in and of itself.

I week or so ago I looked up what sort of production does a team normally get from its #1 slot, #2 slot, #3 slot, #4 slot, and #5 slot (different from a #5 starter or #3 starter because it includes all starts taken by all pitchers by the slot in case of injury, demotion, etc. Sometime this off-season I plan to write it up as an article either here or at THT, depending on how long it is).

Anyhoo, a team normally gets an ERA+ of 90 from its fourth slot. I don't see Suppan's ERA falling that steeply.

If anyone's curious, a 3rd slot ERA+ is 97. A second slot ERA+ is 104. Yes, that's right, Suppan gave the Cards slightly better production than a normal two slot.

For a guy who's not a journeyman, he certainly has journied a lot.

Then Kenny Rogers is the king of the journeymen. Just about any player who plays ten plus years is a journeyman. Jamie Moyer is a journeyman pitcher. David Wells is a journeyman pitcher. Kevin Brown was a journeyman pitcher.

Maybe it's just a stupid nebulous term that should not be defined in the dictionary by anyone.

As for Suppan himself. . . the average starter has an ERA+ of 96. Suppan just had a season of 107 following a year of 120. Maybe he moves into a grey area between 2 & 3 starter or at worst 3rd starter. It takes an insane amount of league regression to make him a fourth starter in the AL. Forget calling the NL a AAAA league, you'd be calling them a AAA league.

Given that lopsided NL versus AL record split in the regular season and the lack of the DH, I hope you can at least see why it's least think it's plausible that Soup's a 4th starter. You believe it would take an "insane" league regression but there evidence that suggest there's maybe not "insane" difference between the AL versus NL in terms of replicability of pitching success across leagues, but it's significant. And furthermore, in the case of Soups, we have data showing AL performance from his RS stint. While sample size isn't huge, I don't know if I would dismiss it either.

Would those four seasons of ~105 ERA+'s in Kansas City reflect on Suppan's quality?

I don't think he's that guy any more. A pitcher's stuff can change, sometimes for the better but often for the worse.

And yes, I think there's a big difference between the leagues right now. You don't see a lot of command-and-control guys throwing 85-86 mph and succeeding in the AL this year, whereas there were a number of guys like that succeeding in the NL this year.

Maybe it's just a stupid nebulous term that should not be defined in the dictionary by anyone

Maybe, but as an English professor I will try. "Journey" is from the French journée, which means the length of one day. Hence a "journeyman" is hired by the day instead of being his own master. It's only incidentally related to "journey" in its root sense of the amount of distance you can travel in one day.

You can be a journeyman in your trade (metaphorically) and work in one place for an extended period, like Jerry White or Geno Petralli or Luis Aguayo. You can be a master of your trade and work in many places (Roger Clemens).

Suppan will soon be a free agent, right? He's probably fixing to earn a master's recompense, even if he has to travel somewhere else to get it ...

The Cardinals on May 31 were 34-19 (a 104-win pace over the entire schedule), while "running Ponson, Marquis, and Mulder out there".

This goes both ways. It could mean the Cardinals would've been 40-14 without Ponson, Marquis and Isringhausen.

Suppan - 2 years 14 M from the Yankees.

2/14? Suppan's gonna get at least double that. This offseason will be insane, and he's about the 5th best pitcher available.

Then Kenny Rogers is the king of the journeymen. Just about any player who plays ten plus years is a journeyman. Jamie Moyer is a journeyman pitcher. David Wells is a journeyman pitcher. Kevin Brown was a journeyman pitcher.

Maybe it's just a stupid nebulous term that should not be defined in the dictionary by anyone.

Those guys are all north of 40. Suppan journeyed a bunch before 30.

It's not really a nebulous term. Suppan's a guy who disappointed his first organization, went to a lame organization where he could build a rep as an innings-eater while at the same time getting rocked, went to a different league and didn't get rocked as bad but still pretty bad, went back to his first organization and disappointed it again, went back to the easier league and improved his numbers a little bit to somewhere just north of average.

If he'd had any arm trouble in his 20s, he might very well be pumping gas and shooting critters now.

The fact that he's better than some teams' ones means nothing; I'd be interested to see how many sportswriters criticized the Royals pitching staff he anchored by saying something along the lines of, "Their best starter is really a #4 or 5 starter ..."

IOW, a veritable patron saint of journeymen.

Suppan journeyed a bunch before 30

This is why English professors get depressed :)

I think Joe Giardi made a very good, albeit non-saber, point last night when he chalked up the Cardinals lead to good ol' experience. It's a tired old explanation, but the Tigers as a team may indeed be overwhelmed by the moment.

It's certainly better than the "new" explanation that playoff baseball is all a crapshoot that's barely worth tuning in and certainly not worth giving any merit to a team that had a lesser regular season record but comes up big in a short, tight series of series between pretty evenly-matched teams.

I truly don't believe that any tinkering with the format of the playoffs would please the latter, who apparently prefer "statisically significant" regular season play to any playoffs at all, to any matchup that would give a team with more regular season losses a chance to call itself champion.

If playoff baseball is really making some of you as miserable as you sound, please save someone the trauma of finding you with your brains splattered or your neck in a noose and tune out now, for god's sake.

I think Joe Giardi made a very good, albeit non-saber, point last night when he chalked up the Cardinals lead to good ol' experience. It's a tired old explanation, but the Tigers as a team may indeed be overwhelmed by the moment.

Tired, old, and wrong. And utterly lacking in evidentiary support. The moment's no bigger now than playing in Yankee Stadium, playing to eliminate the Yankees, and playing for the AL pennant. To the extent intangible factors are involved, they are almost solely attributable to having to wait a week before Game 1 and the intermittent schedule caused by the rain.

It also doesn't help much when you lead 3-0 before the rain and lose the lead because your outfielders slip in the outfield of a one-year-old stadium.

Yeah, the World Series is no bigger than an ALCS or an ALDS, really not any bigger than a midsummer interleague matchup to some.

You'd think the World Series had never suffered any rainouts before now, or cold weather, or slippery conditions, that no team had ever had to lay off a few days before playing the next series, had never misplayed conditions in an unfamiliar stadium.

Poor Tigers, can't even beat an 83-win team from baseball's worst division in a second-tier league.

Not hardly.

The Cardinals on May 31 were 34-19 (a 104-win pace over the entire schedule), while "running Ponson, Marquis, and Mulder out there". Even on July 26 - although by this time they had, in fact, stopped running Ponson and Mulder out there, the former because of ineffectiveness and the latter because of injury - they were 58-42, a 94-win pace.

Mulder was pitching effectively before he got hurt. Through May 22 he'd had eight quality starts in 10 outings, and was 5-2, 3.74. It's hard to tell what effect the back injury in early May might have had on his mechanics, but I would not be at all surprised if he didn't subtly alter his motion as a result.


All of which is irrelevant to the point I was making. Mulder and Ponson both fell apart; Marquis sucked all year and got worse. This just demonstrates what I was saying--a team is a fluid entity. With Mulder pitching well, and Ponson pitching competently, the Cardinals were a good team. When Mulder went down and Ponson blew up, that cost them some games they might otherwise have won, and they probably would have won another 2-3 more with a guy with a 4.75 ERA instead of a 6 ERA taking Marquis' innings.

Right now, they have three starters doing well, a fourth who came up big, a good bullpen and a relatively healthy Rolen and Edmonds.

And they are winning.

Yeah, the World Series is no bigger than an ALCS or an ALDS, really not any bigger than a midsummer interleague matchup to some.

I agree that any time a team plays worse in the World Series, dunderhead commentators are going to suggest that team is fading in the moment, but it's not like there's some great body of support for the proposition. It's just "thinking" for people that don't want to think. The momentum breaks and removal of baseball rhythm is orders of magnitude more reasonable an explanation.

You'd think the World Series had never suffered any rainouts before now, or cold weather, or slippery conditions, that no team had ever had to lay off a few days before playing the next series, had never misplayed conditions in an unfamiliar stadium.

When was the last time a come-from-behind rally got started in the late innings of a World Series game when a competent outfielder lost his footing going after a catchable fly ball? Was that because of the enormity of the moment, too?

IMHO, having the best overall record in your league during the regular season should be rewarded with a World Series berth, not merely a chance at a World Series berth

That's a fine opinion to have, but not only is it not the current system, it's not the system agreed to by the competing clubs, the system they've all played under since opening day. Even the results we have from the regular season are skewed because of that. Hence why the Tigers aren't going to complain about having to face the 83-win Cardinals again, and the Mets aren't going to file a protest because they weren't allowed in the Series.

If you still care to watch baseball at this point in the year, might I suggest trying to enjoy the games -- as has been noticed, the actual games of this year's series haven't been that bad. If the Tigers can get this thing back to Detroit, it will easily trump the last two fall classics (if it hasn't already).

IOW, a veritable patron saint of journeymen.

The English professor says you're wrong.

It also doesn't help much when you lead 3-0 before the rain and lose the lead because your outfielders slip in the outfield of a one-year-old stadium.

It never did rain last night, so technically, I guess you're right in that the Tigers lost their 3-0 lead before the rain came....

And I guess that's the old home-field advantage for you: the groundskeepers made sure the field was properly drained and relatively unslippery while the Cardinals were in the field, then they slicked it up for the Tigers when they were in the field. I mean, that's the only explanation I have for the couple running catches the Cardinals were able to make without falling on their behinds...

It never did rain last night, so technically, I guess you're right in that the Tigers lost their 3-0 lead before the rain came....

Sure looked like rain on my TV and to the TV and radio announcers.

And I guess that's the old home-field advantage for you: the groundskeepers made sure the field was properly drained and relatively unslippery while the Cardinals were in the field, then they slicked it up for the Tigers when they were in the field. I mean, that's the only explanation I have for the couple running catches the Cardinals were able to make without falling on their behinds...

Not the point. The slip was just another random, freak occurrence in a series and postseason already riddled with way too many of them.

It also doesn't help much when you lead 3-0 before the rain and lose the lead because your outfielders slip in the outfield of a one-year-old stadium.

You could learn a lot from that outfielder. Granderson said the field was fine, that he was cutting left and right all night. That one time he stepped in a soft spot and slipped. He's taking the slip a lot better than you are, and you didn't fall on national television. (an aside: Rodney says the ball wasn't wet at all, so I'm tired of pundits pointing to the conditions for causing that error).

What does the age of the stadium have to do with anything?

And, what do you mean "3-0 before the rain." It misted all game. It didn't really rain at all. Conditions were the same throughout.

I don't mind that you're upset that your team lost, and it was indeed a gut-wrenching turn of events that lead to the loss, but you should man up like Granderson and move on. It's not the groundskeepers' fault. It's not the age of the stadium's fault. It's not Suppan's "journeyman (but not really) status" that caused the loss. It's not anyone's fault. It's baseball and sometimes the breaks go your way, and sometimes they don't.

You could learn a lot from that outfielder. Granderson said the field was fine, that he was cutting left and right all night. That one time he stepped in a soft spot and slipped. He's taking the slip a lot better than you are, and you didn't fall on national television. (an aside: Rodney says the ball wasn't wet at all, so I'm tired of pundits pointing to the conditions for causing that error).

Gee, athletes not pointing to true causes because it might sound like an excuse ... that's never happened before.

And, what do you mean "3-0 before the rain." It misted all game. It didn't really rain at all. Conditions were the same throughout.


Well, I wasn't there so I'll just have to rely on my hi-def TV and the Tigers' announcers then. Both saw no rain for about half the game and wet mist for roughly the other half. Sorry for lying.

I don't mind that you're upset that your team lost, and it was indeed a gut-wrenching turn of events that lead to the loss, but you should man up like Granderson and move on. It's not the groundskeepers' fault. It's not the age of the stadium's fault. It's not Suppan's "journeyman (but not really) status" that caused the loss. It's not anyone's fault. It's baseball and sometimes the breaks go your way, and sometimes they don't.


Asked and answered. A million times over.

It was misting all night, but it never rained in the stadium.

The slip was just another random, freak occurrence in a series and postseason already riddled with way too many of them.

Namely, the Tigers beating the Yankees, sweeping the A's, and having an old journeyman pitcher throw 23 scoreless innings. Talk about random and freak!

Asked and answered. A million times over.

What was the question?

Hey DTS, did you see my post in the Lounge about tomorrow?

By the way, it has rained over an inch in St. Louis today, and will probably continue for the next couple of hours.

"That's "Fletch", right?"

Not exactly.

Then Kenny Rogers is the king of the journeymen. Just about any player who plays ten plus years is a journeyman. Jamie Moyer is a journeyman pitcher. David Wells is a journeyman pitcher. Kevin Brown was a journeyman pitcher.

Maybe it's just a stupid nebulous term that should not be defined in the dictionary by anyone.

This thread is probably over, but I wanted to point something out. The word "journeyman" was created in a baseball context when the reserve clause was still around, meaning that a guy who had played for half a dozen baseball teams was likely to be a replacement-level or one-dimensional player who teams had no problem getting rid of even when they had the right to keep him around for his whole career.

Nowadays with free agency, I don't think the word means anything.

PH: DHs plus Gates Brown, Thames, Casey...we're good here.

Gates Brown, 1968: 104 PA, .370/.442/.685, in the "year of the pitcher." OPS+ 234.

Gates Brown, 1967: 105 PA, .187/.286/.286, OPS+ 68.
Gates Brown, 1969: 100 PA, .204/.250/.290, OPS+ 49

Professional pinch-hitters (has the species gone extinct?) lived such interesting lives.

This thread is probably over, but I wanted to point something out. The word "journeyman" was created in a baseball context when the reserve clause was still around, meaning that a guy who had played for half a dozen baseball teams was likely to be a replacement-level or one-dimensional player who teams had no problem getting rid of even when they had the right to keep him around for his whole career.

Cool.

Then there were journeymen pitchers in the days of journeymen better than Jeff Suppan is now.

"answered. A million times over."
INCORRECTLY ANSWERED, BUT YES, ANSWERED...

birdlives Posted: October 27, 2006 at 02:45 PM (#2226429)

I also forgot to mention how much I liked Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

Excellent book.

At least explain the Loewen hate... although Keith Law on his chat said he expects Loewen to be a complete bust. He did improve his command over the course of the season.


if keith law says one thing, then any thinkging man with an iq over 10 would go the opposite way, the guy is a complete and utter tool for the east coast teams and has the iq of a cardinals sports writer. I mean, seriously this is a guy who seriously still believes suppan is a number two, he probably believes burkett, and vazquez are borderline aces. and actually thinks a mess team without out pedro or el duque is comparable in quality.... i mean he followed the typical espn idiocy of basing post season expecations on regular season w/l totals regardless of the fact that the teams in the post season didn't remotely resemble the w/l totals of the teams he was basing them on....keith law is officially the most moronic non buster olney person on the planet.

Then there were journeymen pitchers in the days of journeymen better than Jeff Suppan is now.


and there are roughly 200 regular season pitchers in baseball that are inferior to suppan....

lets see.... hmm we'll start with the mess
inferior pitchers to suppan this year. ooops there entire ####### rotation except glavine,

the great overrated pedro with his 96 era+, traschel with his 87, el crappy(can you believe there were mess fans crying over the lack of this loser) with his 106... ooops maine had a 120... in 90 innnings pitched...hmm lets take a quick look at suppans last 90 innings pitched......damn, not even close, maine with 3.60 era in his last 90 innings pitched compared to an obivously superior suppan with a 2.39 in his last 94 innings pitched.

yep comparable pitchers... keep whining.

suppan would be an ace on the Mess staff, no arguments or debates....