our MVP candidates playoff stats:dmarx114 wrote: ↑January 19 23, 8:52 amMaybe Mo should have acquired an MVP candidate.....or 2.go birds wrote: ↑January 19 23, 8:46 amwell having a first ballot HOFer in the heart of the order helps.dmarx114 wrote: ↑January 19 23, 8:10 amIt's kind of funny that the Cardinals 2 championships in the wild card era were teams that won 83 games and won the wild card. There wasn't anything different about the model back then, compared to now.AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote: ↑January 19 23, 8:02 amAgreed on all accounts.haltz wrote: ↑January 18 23, 8:37 pm
This is better than the coded nonsense from Mo. I mean there's something to it where they don't pull the trigger on Arenado because they owe Price, Pujols and Heyward $82M or whatever in 2021. Obviously they could, but realistically I don't think it happens. I wonder how much the playoff crapshoot math has changed though and permeated the FO and ownership, because it's not the same with the new format.
Bernie goes on to break down the playoff success between the periods of 1996-2013 and 2014-2022 and it's a staggering difference in win percentage, titles, pennants, etc. Of course, that breakdown is arbitrarily set up so take it fwiw. But, there is no doubt that 'recently' whatever that means, the model has not been as effective as it was a decade + ago.
To summarize the different viewpoints I see on the board over the years, they kind of break down as follows:
1. Build juggernauts regardless of cost.
2. Keep payroll in mind, but be more aggressive with top tier FA, raise payroll as needed.
3. Mildly successful, near the playoff teams every year is great since it happens nearly every year.
Obviously 1 is a pipe dream, and we could all kind of surmise 3 was DeWitt's preference. I'm actually kind of impressed at how in tune the board is to that.
But, if there was any doubt, he just basically stated it. His goal is to get to the playoffs. And, not take on any extra risk than is necessary to do so. At least that's how I interpret it.
All that said, I do wonder, if your goal is to win as many championships as possible over an unlimited time frame in the current stratified structure where some teams are trying to build juggernauts and some teams are focused on saving money and rebuilding, what approach results in more postseaon success given there are limited but not crippling payroll limitations and keeping in mind just how fickle postseason baseball is:
A. Take a low risk approach and build a 90ish win team, get into the playoffs 80% of the time, and roll the dice.
B. Introduce more risk/contracts, raise the ceiling of some teams up to 100 wins at the cost of lowering the floor of some seasons to a below playoff threshold.
I don't know how to go about solving that question or if it is even solvable. We kind of looked at it in some other thread where we were talking about playoffs/odds earlier this offseason/during the playoffs. I think you can make the case for either A or B. But...no idea how reliable the assumptions are.
The only thing that's changing is that we are losing close playoff games instead of winning them. But that's baseball. And that's how October works.
Here are albert pujols' stats in the playoffs, including 2022: 19 homers in 304 ABs while slashing .319/.422/.572
The cardinals have been dining off these rings for years and will continue to do so until the NL is no longer the worst division in baseball.
Welcome to October.
goldy: 8 homers in 92 ABs with a slash line of .261/.333/.576--propped up by his two playoff appearances with the d-backs
arenado: pointless to even type out because his numbers are bad
very small sample size though because the cardinals don't make it past the first round with these MVPs