Tony LaRussa retires

The other big question is "why didn't he win with awesome teams and he did win with a couple of mediocre Cardinals teams that backed into the playoffs because either their division was mediocre or other teams choked?"

Baseball is meant to be a long-haul sport and Bud has turned it into a short-series sport by trying to place more teams and more emphasis in the playoffs. The best team wins a short series probably 55-60% of the time at best (and I'll be honest -- in the pre-expanded playoff era, I thought the Reds were the better team going into 1990 because their lineup was very solid and their bullpen was lights-out in innings 7-9 ... they were a far better team than the Dodgers in '88, but that series was over the second Vin Scully voiced his disbelief).

The Cardinals were probably the sixth-best team in the playoffs this year -- and the third-best among the NL teams. But in a short series with Chris Carpenter throwing 1/4 of the games and Albert Pujols making the opposing team's manager piss down his leg despite a very average or below-average lineup in the other seven spots, that evens things out really quickly. Because baseball teams now have to win *three* short series instead of one (as they did pre-1969) or two, the likelihood that the champion will be a middle or lower-tier playoff team is more likely than in other sports.

In the NBA, the better team is probably going to win 75-80% of the time. In the NHL, it comes down to who has the best goalie, so it can be a crapshoot. Other sports are one-and-done, but the NFL champion is usually a better team because the best team wins in football at a similar rate to the NBA. In baseball, the top teams usually have about a .600 winning percentage, and the worst teams are usually at about .400. In football, the top teams are at about .875 and the worst around .125. In basketball, the top teams are at about .750 and the worst around .250, so the likelihood of the "best team" not winning in baseball is extremely high. Not so in other sports (except hockey, where the goaltending can torpedo a good team and elevate a bad one. Just as the Philadelphia Flyers).

 

Duncan and shiny objects ... would they be sharp, too?

 

Moreover, Stewart preceded La Russa in Oakland by a half-season, but didn't become a true major league ace until he got with Dave Duncan. And Eckersley's development into a dominant closer late in the 1987 season (a move made by La Russa/Duncan as smasher said) allowed Oakland to trade Jay Howell, which brought them Welch in return.

Edmonds was coming off basically a year lost to injury when the Cardinals got him for nothing. Holliday had not proven he could hit outside Coors Field before he came to St. Louis.

And let's not forget that Pujols jumped more or less straight from A-ball to the majors in 2001. Yes, he's become one of the greatest players in baseball history since, but La Russa handing him a major-league job on a contending team as a 21-year-old with three games of Triple-A experience was a bit of a gamble.

 

La Russa had a personal conflict with Edmonds also.

 

Fixed before A_QB could get to it!!!

 

The '04 Cardinals didn't have Carpenter. As we saw in the 2006 and 2011 postseason, that's a pretty big deal. They're obviously not a 105-win team without their best pitcher. They also didn't have HFA, had one fewer day off to set their pitching and were playing a 98-win opponent with a $50 million payroll advantage. People who only pay attention to three teams all season don't seem to grasp all this when they revisit history. The '04 Cardinals didn't choke. The Red Sox were better when the World Series was played.

Playoff teams are not as good or bad as their season win total. Teams are a snapshot in time. Who's healthy. Who's not. Who's hot. Who's not. Who was added to the roster at the end. Who can be dropped from the roster because it's a short series with off days. All those things affect whether a 90-win team like this year's Cardinals can beat a 102-win team like this year's Phillies.

That's why people say crapshoot. Because it is.

 

Eck was a multi-time All-Star who only two years prior to being an A had an ERA+ of 130 as a starter.

Berkman did not rake this year because of LaRussa - he raked because when healthy...that is what he does. his talent level had nothing to do with TLR.

Carpenter was a highly touted 1st-round draft pick who struggled with injuries. The talent was always there, which is why the Cards risked signing him, despite knowing he would miss an entire season.

I do think Duncan helped Stewart, but the talent had to still be there for the development to happen.

Are you implying that Carpenter, Berkman, Stewart, Eck, etc. were not that talented, but a product of Duncan and LaRussa?

 

Never said that, but they took some chances with guys others might not have.

Eckersley was a good pitcher for a long time before he came to Oakland, that's true. But it was La Russa's idea to make him into a ninth-inning specialist. And that made him a Hall of Famer.

 

The Sox did have the momentum, but the Cardinals had a better lineup. And Boston's bullpen was decimated by the ALCS.

 

I didn't know that. What exactly was behind it? I do remember that Edmonds had a bit of a diva reputation with the Angels before they traded him.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2008034428_nlbeat05.html
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/56570-edmonds-la-russa-trade-barbs

Here's some of it.

Important to note with most of these that this is an old man publicly bickering with people half his age. That's sad no matter who it is or how accomplished the principals are.