Last night, a college buddy of mine posted the following on Facebook: "Huff, Uribe, Sanchez, and Renteria.  Worst infield ever in a World Series?"

While that collection is not the most impressive bunch, I was immediately skeptical that they could take home the crown for Worst World Series Infield ever.  I starting going over recent World Series matchups in my head, and one that eventually came to me was a winning WS team known by the exploits of its unshaven, crippled OF and dominating, baby-faced #1 starter: yes, those 1988 Dodgers.

First, the 2010 GIants.  While the team overall screams "motley crew" - the media has certainly drilled that into our heads - their infield actually seems decent.  Save Uribe, those guys seem like league-average, albeit perhaps on the downswing of their careers.  Can I get a "grizzled veteran" from the congregation? Amennnn!

The 1988 Dodgers infield, in my opinion, do not hold a flame to the 2010 Giants.  Franklin Stubbs, Steve Sax, Alfredo Griffin, and Jeff Hamilton.  The fact that I have to use their first names to clarify who they are is not good.  I say Gibson, or Hershisher, and you know who I am talking about.  Not this crew.

Here's the career OPS+ for the respective infields:

Huff - 115, Uribe - 85, Sanchez - 97, Renteria - 94

Stubbs - 96, Sax - 95, Griffin - 67, Hamilton - 74

Not really even close.  Man, that left side of the Dodgers infield was downright terrible.  Sadly somewhat reminiscent of our 2010 Cardinals experience at those positions.  Okay, no time to dwell on that!

So, what is your pick for worst World Series Infield Ever?  I'm sure there are some more out there.  I chose not to reach back further than my ~25 years of baseball fandom, but I'm sure other candidates exist.

**On a sidenote, I went back and watched the Gibson homerun again.  It was a definitive moment for any baseball fan, certainly for me, who was ten years old at the time and just starting to really follow baseball closely.  In the MLB.com video clip, Gibson mentions that he could see a bunch of brake lights going off in the parking lot as the ball sailed over the fence, as early-leaving fans collectively reacted to their regrettable decision when hearing the roar of the crowd or perhaps Vin Scully call the shot.  I thought that was pretty awesome.

Having high-OBP players at the top of the lineup is certainly helpful to a team’s offensive success. In Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin’s The Book, it is concluded that leadoff and #2 hitters should be high OBP guys but don’t necessarily need to flash the speed that traditionally has been associated with those spots. Given this characterization, Schumaker and his .370 OBP from the leadoff spot over the past two seasons seems to be a solid, if unspectacular fit (and a lock for the same assignment, at least against RHPs, in 2010).

But what about the 2-hole?

Perhaps this was obscured by our overall success last year, but in 2009 we flat-out stunk in the #2 spot. Remember in 2008 when Aaron Miles got 151 ABs from that spot? In general we lobbied here for his release, and rightfully so given his career .322 OBP and limited range. But in 2008 we dodged a bullet. In those 151 ABs from the #2 spot, Miles had a .390 OBP. Talk about getting something out of an investment at its peak!

In fact overall, the Cardinals excelled in 2008 from the second spot in the order: they had a .371 OBP, good for 2nd best in NL. What a difference a year makes. Despite our overall success, in 2009 we languished from this spot in the order, with a .316 OBP (and a rotten 13th best in NL).

Can you believe that the most significant contribution from someone in 2009 to eclipse that 2008 Miles OBP mark was our very own trusty leadoff hitter? Schu had a whopping 11 ABs from the #2 spot in 2009 and managed a .417 OBP.

The bulk of the responsibility for #2 fell to a motley crew that ranged from slightly sub-par to just plain bad, at least in the OBP department:

Note: the figures above are whole-season, so some of DeRo's and Lugo's ABs from this spot likely came with the Indians and Red Sox

Thank you Addition by Subtraction! Getting DeRosa, Ankiel, Khalil, Thurston, and Duncan off the roster and out of a potential #2 assignment seems to be a strong move given the above table. Those five combined for 321 ABs last year. Can you believe the best of that bunch from an OBP perspective was Duncan? Perhaps he did get a bad rap…well maybe not.

League-average OBP is about .340. It makes sense that from the 2-spot, it should be even higher. Clearly we need an improvement from this spot in 2009 if we are to maintain success. Rasmus’s .333 mark can hopefully improve in 2010, although his minor-league career OBP of .366 would indicate it isn’t going to improve much. He is the most likely candidate to carry the 2-hole load in the short term. But perhaps his speed is better served later in the lineup, ahead of singles hitters like Molina and Ryan?

Which brings me to my point: assuming the Cardinals manage to sign Holliday (these personal fingers are crossed for that outcome, and are going to put full faith in Mo not overpaying or committing to 8 years), perhaps Matty is our best shot at the 2-hole.

Chuckb, in March of this year (well it is this year for another few hours anyways) and also referencing The Book, advocated consideration for Pujols in the #2 or cleanup spot, and rightfully so. Of course given TLR’s proclivities, it is unlikely to happen.

Given a locked Pujols at #3, perhaps the career .387 OBP Holliday, with some power but not gobs of it, and with decent baserunning skills but by no means a base-stealing machine, is our best hope for the #2 spot ahead of Pujols.

What are your thoughts for a 2010 #2-spot solution? I purposefully avoided a discussion of LHP vs. RHP assignments, but of course that has to play into the discussion. Regardless, here’s hoping to better than a team .316 OBP from the Deuce next year.

We often subscribe to the belief that experience is a positive trait in evaluating players.  Not only does past performance give us a comfort level with predicting future results, but beyond that, we (and pro organizations) often view the “been there, done that” mentality as a positive trait.

But can experience ever be a bad thing?

This question was prompted by a comment from Cardinals4Ever about the reason for LaRussa bringing up Jimenez, instead of a (likely) more talented youngster like Motte:

"[Motte] is lights out right now and throwing in the high 90's ... hits 98 from time to time ... he would have to help us more than Jimenez ... but from Tony's perspective, it's experience vs. rookie"

Jimenez is 27, Motte is 25.  K-J has about 6 times more innings pitched in the minors, with a 3.99 ERA.   Nothing to sneeze at, but nothing to write home about.

But K-J’s major league experience consists of 43 IP, in which he has a 7.53 ERA.

Perhaps the overwhelming factor is that his numbers in the majors are just plain bad (despite the small sample size).

But it must also be noted that K-J’s “experience” is one of repeatedly getting shellacked my major-league hitters.  What is the psychological impact of such an experience?

Some would argue that K-J’s “experience” is precisely why he should be in the minors and Motte should be given a chance to prove himself at a major league level.  In K-J’s case the psychology of “experience” may be a negative rather than a positive trait.

Do you buy into this?  Can players get anchored to providing lowered performance based on their past experiences? Or is experience always a good thing to have?