The STL Cardinals Thread - Welcome to STL JJ!

[kgarrett12486]

Interview yesterday and Mo said that Jordan Walker is now the (2) most impressive offensive prospect they have ever developed internally during his time with Cards - only Pujols was slightly higher. He officially passed Taveras in their eyes. 

[kgarrett12486]

We have (9) MLB players that have committed to the WBC now. That is going to open up a ton of playing time for guys in ST to get a good look. 

Derrick Goold mentioned Moises Gomez and Jordan Walker specifically.  

[MOSteelers56]

On 1/4/2023 at 1:21 PM, kgarrett12486 said:

We have (9) MLB players that have committed to the WBC now. That is going to open up a ton of playing time for guys in ST to get a good look. 

Derrick Goold mentioned Moises Gomez and Jordan Walker specifically.  

Who are the 9? I've heard Goldy, Nado, Mikolas will play for the US. I also saw that Edman would be representing South Korea. 

[kgarrett12486]

17 hours ago, MOSteelers56 said:

Who are the 9? I've heard Goldy, Nado, Mikolas will play for the US. I also saw that Edman would be representing South Korea. 

USA - Goldy, Arenado, Mikolas and Wainwright

Korea - Edman

Japan - Nootbar

Canada - O'Neill

Venezuela - Contreras

Mexico - Gallegos

There is also rumor that Brendan Donovan will play for Great Britain, but haven't seen it confirmed. 

[holt_bruce81]

Chip Caray is taking Danny Mac’s place in the broadcast booth. 

[MOSteelers56]

12 hours ago, holt_bruce81 said:

Chip Caray is taking Danny Mac’s place in the broadcast booth. 

It's cool to get a Caray back in the booth. I've heard people say they don't think he's a long-term fit, though. I'm going to miss Danny. 

[StLunatic88]

4 minutes ago, MOSteelers56 said:

It's cool to get a Caray back in the booth. I've heard people say they don't think he's a long-term fit, though. I'm going to miss Danny. 

I don't think you're going to notice its not Danny like 30 games in. Its just how the league wants it, these guys are mostly interchangeable

As far as a "long term fit" What does that even mean? These guys move around all the time. 

 

I would have preferred Goldsmith, but Im also not stuck in the late-80s/early-90s as a baseball fan like most of St Louis

[MOSteelers56]

9 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

I don't think you're going to notice its not Danny like 30 games in. Its just how the league wants it, these guys are mostly interchangeable

As far as a "long term fit" What does that even mean? These guys move around all the time. 

 

I would have preferred Goldsmith, but Im also not stuck in the late-80s/early-90s as a baseball fan like most of St Louis

I don't watch anyone but the Cards so I'm a little ignorant of other broadcast guys. TBH, I don't know what long term fit means. I just saw someone else say it online lol

[kgarrett12486]

On 1/24/2023 at 8:01 AM, StLunatic88 said:

I don't think you're going to notice its not Danny like 30 games in. Its just how the league wants it, these guys are mostly interchangeable

As far as a "long term fit" What does that even mean? These guys move around all the time. 

 

I would have preferred Goldsmith, but Im also not stuck in the late-80s/early-90s as a baseball fan like most of St Louis

Agreed, once the season settles in it's going to be old news. Caray is a good neutral play by play guy, which is a good thing IMO, since we have some 'different' analysts in Thompson and Edmonds. 

Wouldn't have minded Goldsmith, he's of the same cut of Danny Mac in the emotion of his calls.

Anything was better than bringing back Bob Carpenter. 

[kgarrett12486]

Congrats to Scott Rolen on the HOF induction. So glad he got in, he deserved it. 

I didn't want to see him have to wait until the veterans committee had to push him in. 

[holt_bruce81]

29 minutes ago, kgarrett12486 said:

Congrats to Scott Rolen on the HOF induction. So glad he got in, he deserved it. 

I didn't want to see him have to wait until the veterans committee had to push him in. 

You think he goes in wearing a Cardinals cap? 

Also, I dont really understand the HOF voting. Like I loved watching Andruw Jones as a kid and I’m happy he’s likely to get in here in a year or so. But how does he get in and Jim Edmonds doesn’t even get enough votes to remain on the ballot after one year? Just insane. 

[kgarrett12486]

21 minutes ago, holt_bruce81 said:

You think he goes in wearing a Cardinals cap? 

Also, I dont really understand the HOF voting. Like I loved watching Andruw Jones as a kid and I’m happy he’s likely to get in here in a year or so. But how does he get in and Jim Edmonds doesn’t even get enough votes to remain on the ballot after one year? Just insane. 

I would think so, since he has the WS win here. Played basically the same amount (7 years in Philly and 6 in in St. Louis) of time in each city. 

No one can comprehend the voting criteria anymore from the BBWOA. The whole process has become a joke. You have guys that can cast a vote that know next to nothing about baseball and readily admit it. It's also a sham that you don't even have to cast a ballot, or put your name to a selection. 

I heard that since 1990, less than 1% of MLB players get voted into the HOF. It used to fluctuate from 4-12% in all the years prior. 

[StLunatic88]

 

So I saw this chart on Twitter earlier, and while I get what he is doing, It just isnt realistic. Thers just no way a team would win Zero games in Baseball, and in the same breath, no way they win all 162. But more so, it just doesnt feel right. I mean a 95 win season is one heck of an accomplishment, and to pretend thats the same as a 10 win football season (in a 17 week schedule) seems disingenuous. 9 teams won 10+ games this year, only 6 won 95+. It gets even worse when you look at 11 wins equating to 105 wins, because 7 teams won 11+ games, while only 2 won over 105. 

Ive always heard the adage that everyone goes 50-50, its what you do with the other 62 that separates everyone. And while that holds mostly true, theres usually one team wose than that, and some go better than 112 wins. 

So I wanted to see what it really might be like to compare the two sports. When looking at the WORST records of the modern era, most of the worst records are in the Mid 40s, and since the St. Louis Browns (in the 1930s) only one team has ever Won only 40 games. And as we should know, no one has ever won 120 games. So I said, lets adjust the old adage, and call it everyone is 40-40 as a baseline, and what do those remaining 82 games look like paired up against a 17 game season;

NFL   =   MLB

0-17  =   40-122

1-16   =  45-117

2-15  =   49-113

3-14  =   54-108

4-13  =   59-103

5-12   =  64-98

6-11   =   69-93

7-10  =   73-89

8-9    =  78-84

9-8    =  83-79

10-7  =   88-74

11-6   =  93-69

12-5  =   97-65

13-4  =  102-60

14-3  =  107-55

15-2  =   112-50

16-1  =   117-45

17-0  =   122-40

*I only rounded up on wins if they were .7 or higher

So this feels better, Most NFL seasons dont have 0-1-2 win teams, most of them have the worst teams with 3 wins. And its a few in the 3/4 win area with most of the league being between 5 and 11 wins. With a really bad year having less (only a few ever having 0) And on the other end of the spectrum, each year is only less than a hand full of teams over a 100 wins. And only very rarely do we see over 110 wins. 

Just a fun little exercise, does my starting point (40-40) make sense?

[Sllim Pickens]

20 hours ago, StLunatic88 said:

 

So I saw this chart on Twitter earlier, and while I get what he is doing, It just isnt realistic. Thers just no way a team would win Zero games in Baseball, and in the same breath, no way they win all 162. But more so, it just doesnt feel right. I mean a 95 win season is one heck of an accomplishment, and to pretend thats the same as a 10 win football season (in a 17 week schedule) seems disingenuous. 9 teams won 10+ games this year, only 6 won 95+. It gets even worse when you look at 11 wins equating to 105 wins, because 7 teams won 11+ games, while only 2 won over 105. 

Ive always heard the adage that everyone goes 50-50, its what you do with the other 62 that separates everyone. And while that holds mostly true, theres usually one team wose than that, and some go better than 112 wins. 

So I wanted to see what it really might be like to compare the two sports. When looking at the WORST records of the modern era, most of the worst records are in the Mid 40s, and since the St. Louis Browns (in the 1930s) only one team has ever Won only 40 games. And as we should know, no one has ever won 120 games. So I said, lets adjust the old adage, and call it everyone is 40-40 as a baseline, and what do those remaining 82 games look like paired up against a 17 game season;

NFL   =   MLB

0-17  =   40-122

1-16   =  45-117

2-15  =   49-113

3-14  =   54-108

4-13  =   59-103

5-12   =  64-98

6-11   =   69-93

7-10  =   73-89

8-9    =  78-84

9-8    =  83-79

10-7  =   88-74

11-6   =  93-69

12-5  =   97-65

13-4  =  102-60

14-3  =  107-55

15-2  =   112-50

16-1  =   117-45

17-0  =   122-40

*I only rounded up on wins if they were .7 or higher

So this feels better, Most NFL seasons dont have 0-1-2 win teams, most of them have the worst teams with 3 wins. And its a few in the 3/4 win area with most of the league being between 5 and 11 wins. With a really bad year having less (only a few ever having 0) And on the other end of the spectrum, each year is only less than a hand full of teams over a 100 wins. And only very rarely do we see over 110 wins. 

Just a fun little exercise, does my starting point (40-40) make sense?

The all time record for wins in MLB is 116.  That has happened twice, almost 100 years apart.  There have been four other seasons with over 110 wins by a team. Three times since 1954.  There have been quite a few over 100, not as many over 105.   

The NFL has had 4 perfect regular seasons, the most wins is 16, so never done in the 17 game season. There have been 30ish 1 loss seasons in the NFL but only 5 with a 16+ game schedule.  

I would compare an undefeated season as being more than 115 games in MLB. 

A 16-1 season would be 109-115 wins.

A 15-2 season would be 100-108 wins

Not counting the 1800s, the worst record in MLB is 36, 43 in the post 1950 era.  So I would say that 40 or less wins is equivalent to an 0-17 record. 

a 1-16 record is equivalent to a 50 or less win team given it has happened three times since 1950. 

I'd also say that a 82-85 win season is equal to a 9-8 record and 78-81 is a 8-9 record.  

From that starting point you can go both ways to fill in the gaps.  

[CWood21]

On 1/26/2023 at 2:48 PM, StLunatic88 said:

Just a fun little exercise, does my starting point (40-40) make sense?

It's just a straight comparison by winning percentages.  I wouldn't take too much stock into it.  And it's also not a direct comparison since NFL is more player-driven where MLB is more team-driven.