Omar Infante since Chipper died:

305/354/426

Brooks Conrad since Prado died:

286/286/1.000

Brian Doyle!

Tell that to the '85/'87/'00//01/'04 Cardinals...

</whiny ##### Cardinal fan>

Seriously, though, for a while there, any time the Birds would make the postseason they'd lose a critical guy in September (or in a couple of cases, October)...

In '85, it was Vince Coleman being eaten by the tarp, in '87 it was Jack Clark (the only guy on that squad with more than 12 homers or an OPS+ above 105), in 2000 it was Mark McGwire and his 1.200+ OPS being relegated to pinch-hitting, in 2001 it was the freakish hunting knife birthday present accident that knocked out Mike Matheny, which some think contributed to Rick Ankiel's meltdown with the unfamilar Carlos Hernandez behind the plate; and in 2004 it was Chris Carpenter getting some kind of weird nerve injury and missing the playoffs...history would be different if Carp had started Game 1 against the Red Sox...I don't think Mark Bellhorn hits a game-winning 2-run homer to break a 9-9 tie because there's no way the Red Sox score 9 in the first place...

Morneau put up 5.2 WAR in 81 games this year. It's probably safe to assume he would have tailed off slightly, say uninjured he's at 8.0 for a full season. 8.0 over 162 games is a little less than .05 per game. Over a five game series, assuming his replacement is, well, replacement level, the Twins are looking at a loss of .25 wins. Not helpful, but not devastating.

Morneau's replacement is actually Jim Thome, Michael Cuddyer, Jason Kubel or Delmon Young, so the loss is even less.

history would be different if Carp had started Game 1 against the Red Sox...I don't think Mark Bellhorn hits a game-winning 2-run homer to break a 9-9 tie because there's no way the Red Sox score 9 in the first place...

So you're saying they would have lost in 5.

I think it's hard to play the what-if game in a series your team never led at any point.

OK, the link's there now (10 years of Primer/BTF and I still forget the article link sometimes).

I think it's hard to play the what-if game in a series your team never led at any point.

Come on, man, haven't you ever heard of momentum?

Yeah, the 2006 Mets sure didn't miss 3/5 of their starting rotation, in beating the Cardinals in six games and going on to win the World Series.

I don't have Insider to read the article, but it's probably just another playoffs-are-a-small-sample effect, right? If a star player is 5.0 WAR per 150 games, that comes to 0.23 WAR over a 7-game series. Or a 77% chance that we never see a difference between a star and his replacement. More if the team was aware of the need and filled it with an above-replacement player.

ida know bout that, dan

see astros 2004 (no pettitte - or should i say that pete munro was no pettitte)

see astros 2005 (see remnants of jeff bagwell)

Come on, man, haven't you ever heard of momentum?

Hmmm, apparently the 2004 Red Sox had no momentum whatsoever entering the World Series. That whole coming back from a 3-0 deficit against New York surely couldn't be considered momentum.

Your sh*tting me, right? The Sox were like a freight train of momentum after that series.

Your sh*tting me, right? The Sox were like a freight train of momentum after that series.

Exactly. Thank you for making my point.

So Chris Carpenter starts Game 1 of the World Series, Red Sox score < 9 runs, lose the game, and VOILA! Momentum derailed. Nice combeback v. the Yankees, but ultimately, wait til next year. Or 2007 or whatever year it ended up being.

Morneau put up 5.2 WAR in 81 games this year. It's probably safe to assume he would have tailed off slightly, say uninjured he's at 8.0 for a full season. 8.0 over 162 games is a little less than .05 per game. Over a five game series, assuming his replacement is, well, replacement level, the Twins are looking at a loss of .25 wins. Not helpful, but not devastating.

You're not factoring in Morneau's replacement's replacement. ;)

If you want to play "what if" about Game One in '04 I think you also have to question if the Cards would have scored 9 runs. They had their big inning against Wakefield, a "touch" pitcher on a very very very cold night after about a 30 minute wait between innings. But to try and recreate the game, and the series, that way would be silly, butterfly effect and all that. We can go on and on with this stuff. Maybe a non-concussed Johnny Damon gets the Sox over the hump in '03, maybe a healthy Ted Williams leads the Sox to victory in '46, Tony C. in '67, Rice in '75, Seaver in '86.

I think it is more than fair to suggest that the Cardinals missed Carpenter that series. He's a heck of a pitcher and could have made a difference. Given the way that series played out I don't think it would have mattered, the Cardinal bats, not the pitching, were the problem (3 runs the last 3 games).

I haven't read the full article but I think arguing that missing a superstar doesn't hurt post-season teams is pretty ridiculous (sorry Dan). While I'm sure there are ample examples (Brian Doyle, etc...) I think every fan can probably point to a post-season series by their team that was negatively impacted by a lost star/near star.

I wish Dawson had been injured in 1989.

I think every fan can probably point to a post-season series by their team that was negatively impacted by a lost star/near star.

Well, not the Marlins. But yes, every other team has lost a post-season series, and everybody has at least some nagging injuries. What we're debating is the "impact" part. We can never know whether the star's absence actually cost a game or the series.

Since I'm not an Insider, are there some famous examples of unmissed stars in Szym's article? I can think of Reggie Jackson from the 1972 World Series, and Kirk Gibson (though I guess he did contribute one win all by himself) from the 1988 World Series. Are there some other "OMG we're without our best player" October concerns that turned out to be exaggerated? Not that my current anxiety over Josh Hamilton needs any assuaging or anything :)

I don't have insider, so I can't read this, but it seems to me the loss of a superstar position player is probably not a big deal. But loss of an ace is. Losing two (or, potentially, three) starts from an ace and replacing with your #5 or #6 guy is a big hit. OTOH, it seems like every short series sees some "nobody" going 11 for 17 with 4 HR and 13 RBI, so maybe your replacement plays 5 or 6 games at HOF level. And how often does the hitting star go 1-for the series.


Anyway, my two cents.