The Cardinals as an Object Lesson

The St. Louis Cardinals are often referred to as a “model organization”, and for good reason. Despite playing in one of the smallest markets of any team in Major League Baseball, they have built a sustainable model of success, flowing through nearly every aspect of the game. They draft and develop talent exceptionally well, leading to a seemingly never ending pipeline of young talent flowing into the big leagues. They manage their financial resources very well, and consistently add quality veterans at prices that won’t prohibit them from making other necessary improvements. They have a formula in place that has allowed them to win in both the short and long term, and have shown that it doesn’t take a $175 million payroll to be one of baseball’s elite franchises.

But, of course, they aren’t perfect. No organization is. So, while the Cardinals 2013 season was a remarkable success, and should be viewed that way no matter how the season ended, there may be a few things that can be learned from their final series loss to the Red Sox.

1. Trust your bullpen.

Much was written about the Cardinals starting pitching in the postseason, with Michael Wacha looking like a legitimate #2 starter behind legitimate ace Adam Wainwright, as those two carried the Cardinals in the early rounds of the postseason. However, by the season’s final week, the Cardinals simply had shifted too large of a burden to their starters, and did so at the expense of their bullpen.

Wainwright, Wacha, Lance Lynn, and Joe Kelly combined to pitch 32.2 of the 52 innings — a total of 63% — thrown by Cardinals pitchers in the World Series. In those nearly 33 innings, they combined to allow 19 earned runs, resulting in a 5.23 ERA. The Cardinals bullpen, meanwhile, posted a 2.89 ERA in their 18.2 innings of work. Cardinals starters ran a 36/17 K/BB ratio; Cardinals relievers were at 23/4.

Trevor Rosenthal, probably the most dominant arm on any team that played in October, was asked to get fewer outs than Lance Lynn, the team’s #4 starter. Randy Choate, one of the game’s premier left-handed specialists, got just two outs the entire series, despite the fact that the Red Sox entire offense was essentially one left-handed monster with significant platoon splits. Kevin Seigrist and Carlos Martinez watched as Matheny stuck with his starters in situations where a reliever would have had a significantly better chance of getting a high leverage out.

Relief pitchers, even the non-closers, perform better than all but the very best starting pitchers. Platoon advantages, funky arm angles, unseen release points – these are real advantages that should be exploited. Instead, the Cardinals asked their less effective starting pitchers to win this series against an elite offense. We shouldn’t be too surprised that it didn’t work.

2. Don’t let your weakest link be too too weak.

We can’t know what the trade deadline asking price was for Alexei Ramirez, Erick Aybar, or various other shortstop alternatives — and given the fact that there weren’t many shortstops of significance traded in-season, maybe the prices really were insane — but a team just shouldn’t try and win the World Series with a platoon of Pete Kozma and Daniel Descalso. It’s unrealistic to think that every team can have average or better players at every position on the diamond, but you don’t have to have a good player to avoid having a total hole.

The Cardinals ended up leaning far too heavily on players who simply aren’t viable Major League options. Kozma and Descalso combined to go 1 for 20 in the World Series, which, given their combined .258 wOBA on the season, shouldn’t have been too huge of a surprise. And exacerbating the problem was the fact that the Cardinals bench was basically useless, providing no opportunity for a pinch-hitter to at least provide a high leverage upgrade when necessary. NL teams already have to factor in pinch-hitting for their pitcher, so carrying a total zero at another position simply put them at too large of a disadvantage against a team with no real obvious weaknesses.

Even if the asking prices for Aybar or Ramirez were simply not in line with the value that either could provide, the Cardinals should have been able to do better than Kozma and Descalso. Jose Iglesias was acquired by the Tigers for one toolsy-but-questionable outfield prospect. The A’s got Jed Lowrie last winter without mortgaging their future. The Diamondbacks flipped an overrated young arm to get Didi Gregorius, who they still control for another six years. Maybe Rafael Furcal’s injury wasn’t known heading into spring training, but Pete Kozma should not have been Plan B. And there was plenty of time to acquire a real replacement shortstop after Furcal hit the DL. They could have done better. They should have done better.

3. Don’t count on clutch.

The Cardinals success at hitting with runners in scoring position during the regular season has been well documented. By our calculations, the way they sequenced their hits earned them something like an additional 70 runs over the course of the season, which translates into seven extra wins. The Cardinals had a good offense that looked like a great offense because of how they bunched their hits together.

No matter how you want to describe the reasons for why that happened, the reality is that these kinds of things have little to no predictive value, and not surprisingly, the Cardinals didn’t hit .330 with runners in scoring position in the playoffs. In fact, based on the box score totals, the Cardinals went just 9 for 47 — a .191 batting average — with runners in scoring position in the World Series. In last night’s final game, they stranded two runners in the second, two runners in the fourth, two runners in the fifth, and three runners in the seventh. The Cardinals were eliminated primarily because they didn’t get enough clutch hits.

Stringing your positive events together is fantastic, and helps you win games. But if it’s the thing that your team is best at, well, that’s probably not a great sign. At the end of the day, sequencing is still mostly random, and betting on being able to pile all your hits together at the same time is not a very good strategy.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

123 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ImmanuelKant
10 years ago

I’ve been thinking about the third thing on this since last night. The first two are definitely within the control of the Cardinals organization, but what exactly are they supposed to do about the third? What exactly is the critique? “You got very lucky this season, but don’t act like it’s going to continue!” Were they acting like that? I suppose they could have come out and made an announcement, “Hey, just so everybody knows, we don’t think we’re all that just because we string hits together.” They strung hits together. They won a bunch of games. They got to the World Series. Is it their fault that that was all pretty lucky?

I suppose what they could do is try to improve their offense, but isn’t that just getting back to the second point? And maybe they will this offseason… (Probably not.)

whetstone
10 years ago
Reply to  ImmanuelKant

Perhaps 3) suggests that you shouldn’t be complacent about 2), though it’s hard to say without being in Mozeliak’s head.

I can’t help but wonder if they didn’t expect to be a WS team—as a fan, I didn’t, thinking they’d be a better team in 2014. I don’t remember a WS team dependent on this many rookies. I figured they’d get what they got from Wacha, Kelly, Miller, Martinez, Adams, and Rosenthal next year, and then adding Taveras and Wong would fill a couple holes. Instead the rookies played unexpectedly well, the team overachieved, and a good but flawed team got into the WS. Like in 2006, when they *did* catch the breaks.

Neastws
10 years ago
Reply to  ImmanuelKant

I think the reason #3 is on this list is that the list is about what the Cardinals need to improve. If they are basing how much offense they need to add based on how many runs they scored in 2013, they won’t improve their offense enough to score the same number of runs in 2014.

Jason B
10 years ago
Reply to  Neastws

Good comment from Kant, and yours is an excellent response thereto.

quincy0191
10 years ago
Reply to  ImmanuelKant

It’s not so much that the Cardinals could do something about it as it made the Cardinals look better than they were. These two teams posted the best records in MLB at 97-65, but only one of them was actually a 97-65 team; if the Cardinals had normal RISP performance, going by Dave’s 70 runs, they were a 90-72 team. There’s obviously a lot of difference between 90 wins and 97.

That’s not really something the Cardinals could have done much about, especially late in the season, but it’s a lesson to the people who looked at them and saw a 97 win team when there was really a 90 win team playing. That (possibly) includes the front office, who may have done more at the deadline to turn the Cards into a better offensive team had St. Louis not overperformed with RISP and thus looked weaker. Those changes could have meant something in the Series.

You’re generally right that there’s probably not much in terms of solutions for the Cardinals that can come of acknowledging their RISP performance. In fact, I’d say there’s a decent argument to be made that their issues with LHP were as much a result of poor luck as their good performance with RISP, and those two should have balanced out. I’m still trying to work out how an offense with Molina, Craig, Beltran, Holliday, and Freese can’t hit lefties.

Luke
10 years ago
Reply to  quincy0191

I would actually argue that the Red Sox are better than a 97 win team. The AL East is the toughest division and doesn’t have a cake-walk team to play like most other divisions. The Red Sox had the most difficult schedule of all the division winners.

Brian
10 years ago
Reply to  Luke

There’s not a team in baseball whose true talent level is 97+ wins.

RC
10 years ago
Reply to  Luke

What is true talent level though? All of our evaluations are based on strength of schedule, etc.

BP’s 3rd order wins has the RS as a 99 win team, and the Cardinals as a 93 win team, once you adjust them to neutral schedules. You put that RS team in a weak division, and they SHOULD win 100+ games.

Luke
10 years ago
Reply to  Luke

Brian, how do you know that?

The Red Sox led baseball by far with 55.9 WAR. My understanding is that a replacement level team should be expected to win 47.7 games, so 47.7 + 55.9 is 103.6 wins. The Red Sox average opponent had 33.5 WAR, while Cardinals average opponent had 31.5. Additionally, these numbers understate the true disparity in talent level, since playing more difficult opponents will make your own numbers worse and decrease your WAR.

Luke
10 years ago
Reply to  Luke

Brian, if you’re referring to “true talent” as what a team with the same roster ought to be projected to do going forward, then I would probably agree. But in terms of the actual stats put up by those players in 2013, then adjusted for playing easier opponents, I would say the Red Sox were easily better than a 97 win team.

Ben Cerutti
10 years ago
Reply to  Luke

The Pittsburgh Pirates finished second in the NL Central and they were the 5th best team in all of baseball. The Cincinnati Reds came out of the NL Central as well and were the 11th best team in baseball. The NL Central may have been top-heavy, but it also may have been the best division in baseball.

Brian
10 years ago
Reply to  Luke

I think we mostly agree, Luke. Based on past performance, given their strength of schedule, run differential, etc., the Sox deserved to win at least 97 games, if not a few more. I’m just saying that so many things have to break right for a team whose true talent level is less than 97 wins to actually win 97 games, that you can’t really say that they ARE better than a 97-win team. I mean, the Cards’ Pythagorean record was 103-59, the highest in baseball (and although they played in a weaker National League, they also played 38 games against the Reds and Pirates, both totally legit playoff teams), but you can’t really say that the Cards ARE a 103-win team – b/c any team that gets up over 95 wins is relying to some extent on luck. Even the aggregate WAR that you cite relies on luck.

RC
10 years ago
Reply to  Luke

“The Pittsburgh Pirates … were the 5th best team in all of baseball. The Cincinnati Reds…were the 11th best team in baseball. ”

According to what? Their record?

If you’re just using record, you’re begging the question.

Eric M. Vanmember
10 years ago
Reply to  Luke

BP’s 2nd order Pythagorean is trustworthy — any good run metric applied to hitting and pitching stats will tell you how many games a team should win with neutral sequencing. Their SoS adjustment isn’t done correctly; it needs to be iterative.

Properly adjusting for SoS, the Sox were a 102.5 win team (SOS +2.4, inefficiency +3.1) and the Cardinals a 94.8 (SOS +0.7, efficiency -2.9).

The Tigers, who were incredibly inefficient at 13.3 wins, were a “106.6 win” team. The scare quotes are because their inefficiency grew pretty steadily all year and hence seemed to be real and not random. Granted, the one year I did the comparison, there was no correlation between first- and second-half efficiency across MLB. But when a number that big refuses to regress to the mean, I do wonder … especially since Pyth differential is about 10% predictive year-to-year and can be shown to relate to closer quality (unpublished study of mine).

jj
10 years ago
Reply to  quincy0191

BUT this team did hit lefties in 2012 with almost the same lineup. This team also had 5 20+ HR hitters in 2012 but only 2 in 2012. Those 5 contributed 43 less HR in 2013 and even if you include Adams totals for 2013 that still 26 less HR than 2012. So in 2014 will those guys (or their replacements) hit more HR. i’d think somewhere in between 123 and 80, if so hitting with RISP will not be needed as much.

Ryan
10 years ago
Reply to  jj

Actually, Mozeliak has already publicly stated that you can’t expect it to continue:

“At some point, you typically expect some regression to the mean or some normalcy,” says Cardinals general manager John Mozeliak, who is among the new breed of GMs who place great value on analyzing statistics. “Having it be sustained year in and year out isn’t a good strategy. But it could defy and be a one-year outlier.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/cardinals/2013/08/16/secret-to-cardinals-success-clutch-hitting/2663511/

I don’t think there’s much to criticize the organization about here (or anywhere). They are clearly one of the couple of best organizations in baseball.

It’s true that Matheny didn’t manage their resources optimally in the WS. It’s true that they went into spring training with their backup SS option being an unproven platoon between a guy who flashed brilliance over a very short period and a guy who can’t really play the position. But, the reported ask on SS at the deadline for the Cardinals was one of their top prospects. Would you really trade Wong or Carlos Martinez to get Alexei Ramirez?

I’m a Cards fan and wish they had won the series, but I wouldn’t make that trade. Better to see them back in it over the next 5 years, as I think they will be for smartly husbanding their resources.

Matthew Cornwell
10 years ago
Reply to  quincy0191

94 wins. they had a run differential of a 101 -win team. Plus you have to take into account bad luck with HR/FB, defense, lefty BAA, and hitting w/ nobody on base. What is good for the goose. You can’t just regress one thing.

Noah
10 years ago
Reply to  quincy0191

Not to mention the Red Sox played in the hardest division in the hardest league.

Balthazar
10 years ago
Reply to  quincy0191

I’d add to your primary point, quincy0191, that the Cards weren’t quite as good as their record by going back to the first point in the post. The Birds got very good 2013 seasons out of Lance Lynn and Joe Kelly; both gave really peak performances for their talent level. On stuff, though, their starting pitching really was more of a 91-92 win team. Expecting Lynn and Kelly to be similarly effective against a much better offense (from the left side anyway) wasn’t that realistic. Matheny’s attitude seemed to be ‘they were good enough to get us here,’ but that’s not really managing to the situation, especially as guys pitched to Boston a second time around. Staying long with Lynn and Kelly (not to single them out, but the point stands) is like putting a 91 win team up against Boston for a seven game series. And that didn’t really fly.

Matthew Cornwell
10 years ago
Reply to  Balthazar

Well based on his awful BABIP, many ( including FG WAR) would say that Lynn was better than his ERA indicated. Wainwright’s FIP was much better than his ERA too. Lots of unlicky BABIP on the team,and not all can be attributed to the defense behind them.

Matthew Cornwell
10 years ago
Reply to  Balthazar

Again, there were many areas in which the cardinals were unlucky and played below their typical levels of production (run distribution, batting with nobody on, batting vs. lefties, HR power, pitcher BABIP, etc.). We can’t just pick and chose one or two things we want to adjust for. Adjust for everything or nothing. Just be consistant.

Sparkles Peterson
10 years ago
Reply to  ImmanuelKant

They could get back to occasionally hitting 400′ fly balls because sometimes those go over fences. I’m not sure how this team ended up so punchless this year, but they absolutely have to remedy that next season.

Balthazar
10 years ago

For the year Craig got hurt, Beltran stopped outrunning the calendar, and Molina reverted closer to true talent level; the rest were what they are. Yes, the Cardinals lack of power should really have been mentioned in the post. As Point # 4, though I would put it higher.

In close games with good pitching, power matters more than ever. This is _exactly_ when sequencing breaks down; the flare hits and patient walks don’t come, and somebody needs to knock a ball to the wall or over. That is exactly what Boston did, especially in Games 3 & 4. That is exactly what St. Louis never did. And to me, this is the primary reason why St. Louis lost. The old 3-run homer thing (or 2-run double) . . . .

Matthew Cornwell
10 years ago
Reply to  Balthazar

Even on a rate basis, Craig was well behind what he has been, Freese too.