GatewayRedbirds.com

Regardless of the distribution, they've got the second most runs in the NL, and 3rd most in the Majors. I don't see how they're overrated at this point.

I expect Reyes to come down from where he was last year, but otherwise I don't think there's any question that offensively it's the best lineup in the NL since the late 2004 Cardinals. I suppose you could argue the Reds of 2005 (04?) might be in the mix.

ghostrunner wrote:Regardless of the distribution, they've got the second most runs in the NL, and 3rd most in the Majors. I don't see how they're overrated at this point.

I expect Reyes to come down from where he was last year, but otherwise I don't think there's any question that offensively it's the best lineup in the NL since the late 2004 Cardinals. I suppose you could argue the Reds of 2005 (04?) might be in the mix.

But the distribution does matter.

Scoring 31 runs in four games is impressive -- scoring 28 runs in the next seven is not. Obviously there are peaks and valleys, but this recent stretch of stank is going to be their M.O. this season. I just don't see them as this great offense. I don't. I believe Beltran and Reyes were massive overachievers last season, along with that stiff Lo Duca.

No question it's the best offense in the past three seasons? I've said it ad nauseum that the year in which they won 97 games they had the THIRD best offense in their own division. It doesn't help when you have fossils like Lo Duca, Delgado, Alou, Green and Valentin.

Atlanta scored more runs last year. But aren't we talking about this year? NY's offense is better, and, IMO, Atlanta's is worse this year.

Yeah, NY has no ace. But Atlanta's is brittle, and there's not much after him either.

Right now, I still take NY. But then, I thought the Phillies would actually be good for once.

BW42 wrote:Atlanta scored more runs last year. But aren't we talking about this year? NY's offense is better, and, IMO, Atlanta's is worse this year.

Yeah, NY has no ace. But Atlanta's is brittle, and there's not much after him either.

Right now, I still take NY. But then, I thought the Phillies would actually be good for once.

And NY's improved...how? Paul Lo Duca can't fluke his way to a .318 batting average, Carlos Delgado and Alou can't turn back the clock and Shawn Green, well, there's nothing to be said for Green.

Alou's better than Floyd (or rather whoever they had to play there when he was hurt).

And Valentin took over midseason and is a big upgrade from the glove-only guy they had there (already forgot his name) for two months.

Delgado and LoDuca will be what they usually are.

What about Atlanta. How do they make up for LaRoche's production? What about when Chipper gets hurt? Where's Betemit when they need him now? Luckily, it won't be hard to replace Giles' sorry production from last year. They need to hope Francouer finally improves.

Scoring 31 runs in four games is impressive -- scoring 28 runs in the next seven is not. Obviously there are peaks and valleys, but this recent stretch of stank is going to be their M.O. this season. I just don't see them as this great offense. I don't. I believe Beltran and Reyes were massive overachievers last season, along with that stiff Lo Duca.

Hmmmm.

1) I think you're underestimating the Metsies a bit, Snayke.

2) If those are your feelings about the Mets offense in 2007, you must be downright alarmed about the Cards offense in 07 . . .

skmsw wrote:

Scoring 31 runs in four games is impressive -- scoring 28 runs in the next seven is not. Obviously there are peaks and valleys, but this recent stretch of stank is going to be their M.O. this season. I just don't see them as this great offense. I don't. I believe Beltran and Reyes were massive overachievers last season, along with that stiff Lo Duca.

Hmmmm.

1) I think you're underestimating the Metsies a bit, Snayke.

2) If those are your feelings about the Mets offense in 2007, you must be downright alarmed about the Cards offense in 07 . . .

1. I just think they are going to fall back some, because of their overachievers and age. They aren't going to be terrible. In fact, when all is said and done, I imagine they'll be in the top four in runs scored.

2. Alarmed? That's an understatement. If they ever manage four runs in a game again, I'll go to bed with a smile.

GatewaySnayke wrote:I remember in 2005 when the Cardinals were still good, but not nearly as good as they were in 2004, people were overrating them. The offense was stripped down to Pujols and Edmonds, and while the pitching was magnificent, it felt like they really weren't this great, dominating team, and I think it stemmed from the run in 2004. It was just a carry-over.

Huh?

2004: 105-57, 855-659 RS-RA, Pythag = 100-62, ERA+ = 112, OPS+ = 116
2005: 100-62, 805-634 RS-RA, Pythag = 98-64, ERA+ 123, OPS+ = 106

They scored 50 fewer runs. They were no longer beating teams to a pulp.

GatewaySnayke wrote:They scored 50 fewer runs. They were no longer beating teams to a pulp.

If you factor in the 162 game season, then the 2005 Cardinals scored .3 fewer runs/game than the 2004 Cardinals that "beat teams to a pulp." I had no idea the difference between "offense for the ages" and "riding on the coattails of past success" was really that small