SB Nation User Blog: kindred

Geography and Fan Support

kindred — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:56:35 -0000

The above map shows the geographical distribution of fan support for MLB teams. I thought it was interesting when I saw it and thought I would share. A quick note: gray areas are those in which there were not enough respondents to give them a color. Some of that may be because those areas are sparsely populated. So I think it's safe to color in places like Southern Missouri and Northern Arkansas as Cardinal country, even though the areas on this map are gray. In the Mountain West (outside of the Denver region) such extrapolation may be more difficult, and in fact baseball may simply not as much reach in those places.

A few thoughts: look at the base of support for the Braves. Considering that they are a relatively new team (moved to Atlanta in 1966), the coverage is impressive. But much of it may have come at the expense of the Cardinals. Until the Braves moved to Atlanta, the Cardinals were the southern-most team in MLB. Not too long before that, they were also the western-most team. That, combined with the reach of KMOX, created many Cardinal fans in the South and West. My father, for example, grew up a Cardinals fan in Raleigh, NC because he could listen to the games every night (having Musial and Red and then Gibson and Brock on those teams could't've hurt either). Granted, the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data," but I get the impression that my father's experience was not rare.

However, as more teams moved South and West, and as expansion put teams in places like Kansas City and Houston, a large part of the Cardinals fanbase was cut out. This process largely occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, but it may have had the greatest effect on the children of the 1980s. By then, the teams that had moved in the 1960s and '70s had largely settled, and the "KMOX effect" that had been so prevalent earlier in the century gave way to the "Superstation effect" by which children in the South could watch and follow the Braves on TBS (and those in the Northern Midwest could follow the Cubs on WGN). The parents may have remained Cardinals fans (or not), but their children would be drawn to the Braves, or the Royals, or the Astros, or the Cubs. Further expansion into Florida and Colorado regionalized fan bases even further.

The Cardinals still have a very large geographical population; at a glance, it even appears to be larger than the Cubs' footprint. It has long been a point of pride for the franchise that the team unified a "Cardinal Nation" that stretched all across the United States. But the territorial reach of that Nation is nothing like it used to be. This may be to the detriment of the team, as the opportunities for marketing and merchandising have grown steadily over time, just as the regional reach of the club has shrunk. But it's certainly been good for MLB overall, since greater regional engagement with fanbases have raised the profile of the sport in the South and West, which are now some of the richest regions of the country.

Anyway, I just thought the map was interesting. I have long been interested in what I call the "Sociology of Baseball" and how it has changed and reflected national trends over time.

Attn: 1946 World Series Special Tonight.

kindred — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:32:17 -0000

hey guys... just noticed that there's a special on the 1946 Cards v. Red Sox World Series on MLB Network tonight at 10:30 EST (9:30 CST). short notice, but it should be interesting. Musial against Teddy Ballgame, if nothing else.

i know this isn't an appropriate fanpost, so i'll delete it after the program ends. or a mod can delete it now and put a notice on the front page or something. just wanted people to see it.

On Opportunity Costs

kindred — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:09:32 -0000

in the comments of yesterday's main thread, LB made an important statement here, which i'll excerpt:

a factor i completely overlooked in the main post is the high opportunity cost that attends any long-term deal that’s handed out to a pitcher. when you lock in a mediocrity (or worse) with a long-term guaranteed deal, it costs another, potentially better player a chance to come in and upgrade your organization.

he goes on to say that opportunity costs go both ways, which is definitely true. i replied in that thread trying to flesh out that point, but i think that it might get missed by a lot of people since i posted it late at night towards the bottom of the thread. but here's what i said with a few improvements:

herein lies the problem with citing opportunity costs: you never know in which direction those might point, because none of us have perfect information ahead of time. the entire point of using the concept of opportunity costs as a decision-making tool assumes that actors act rationally, and actors can only act rationally if they have complete (or near complete) information about the outcomes of the alternatives in front of them. those assumptions don’t hold here.

as examples: nearly everyone here (including me) decried the Looper signing at the time, and yet we got one above-average relief season out of him and are in the middle of getting two roughly average starting seasons, all well below the established market value for those levels of production. nearly everyone here hated the Wellemeyer signing last year (including me) because he was gonna take a spot away from a younger player who had more room to develop. then everybody hated his movement from the bullpen to the rotation for the same reason (even more: he was replacing Kid Reyes). Welly and Loop have been pretty huge successes for us, given the cost and the performance of the players they replaced. Encarnacion (even before his unfortunate injury) and Kennedy have not been. Piniero, in my view, is in the middle.

several years ago, the Cards decided not to sign Burnett because he wanted a fifth year added on to the contract. some here supported that decision and some opposed it. in retrospect, given the contracts to pitchers like Suppan, Batista, and Silva, the Cards should've either included the 5th year or bumped up their offered Average Annual Value of the contract by offering more money over 4 years. but it was impossible to know at the time: Burnett had a history of injuries and inconsistent performance. if we'd had Burnett for the past three years, we might've been better able to absorb the injuries to Carp, Mulder, and Wainwright over the past two years. then again, maybe Waino never would've made it into the rotation. maybe Reyes and/or Wainwright would've been traded for somebody else.

all of these are opportunity costs of a selected action. some of them might've worked out. some of them might not have. the point is, you never know beforehand, so simply citing “opportunity costs” without qualification — or even definition — doesn’t really mean anything.

so if we hadn’t signed Welly and Looper (or if we would've signed Suppan, Batista, Silva, or Burnett) we would’ve suffered the opportunity cost of losing (or gaining) the marginal benefit of their production over their replacements. in some cases, that would have been a net gain. in some cases, it would have been a net loss. both the positive and negative gains are examples of opportunity costs, but that fact alone doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not we should sign FAs in the future, or simply promote from within.

the point is, as LB mentioned but didn't really elaborate, opportunity costs run in both directions. we’re dealing with imperfect information here and can’t predict future performances with certainty, so simply citing “opportunity cost” as the sole or primary reason not to sign a FA (or as a reason *to* sign one) is nothing more than a rationale for a previously determined preference. there's a word for that: "bias". it would be just as (in)valid to say that playing an unproven prospect rather than signing an established vet entails an opportunity cost, albeit in the opposite direction, and that would be a bias as well.

the concept of opportunity costs is powerful in its simplicity, but we need to understand what it really means. many on this board -- including me at times -- are biased in favor of player development over signing players with established levels of mediocre performance. sometimes those decisions are correct; sometimes they aren’t. but the concept of opportunity costs is value-free; it doesn’t automatically swing in either direction. opportunity costs should be part of an argument when discussing roster management decisions, and should be used in the context of predicting player performance (and, hopefully, measuring that projected performance in context of the marginal monetary costs). otherwise, it doesn't really help us, and can in fact cloud our judgment.

anyways, yeah. we all have biases, but let’s be careful not to let them sway our judgments too much. especially when we’re tossing out "scientific" theorems in support of our ideas.

Reyes Traded

kindred — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:23:35 -0000

our long national nightmare is over.

traded to the Indians for AA RP Luis Perdomo, a power arm with a plus-plus fastball, a decent slider, and a work-in-progress changeup. he regularly hits 95-96 apparently. he's 24, which might be a little high for AA, but he's doing well there.

all in all, we traded a pitcher with no value and no future here for a decent power arm. it's not amazingly great, but i think it's pretty good for us. add Perdomo to Perez and Motte. in a few years, we might have a lights-out 7-8-9 combo.

doesn't do anything for this year, tho.

2009 3B

kindred — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:30:13 -0000

Glaus has a player option for next season, which he may well exercise. but if he does exercise it, he'd actually be taking a pay cut from this season (from $12.5mn this year to $11.25mn next). he may not want to do this, especially if he thinks he could still get a max multi-year contract elsewhere. he's only 31 this year, so it's definitely possible that an AL club which could DH him once or twice a week might offer 3 years @ $12+mn per. the Cards shouldn't match that. if he finishes the season healthy and with the type of numbers that he's on pace for (~ 120 OPS+, 25-30HR), i'd consider it likely that he's gone.

but the in-house 3B options are pretty bleak. Barden and Freese aren't exactly tearing up AAA, and nobody else is even close to MLB-ready. it might only take Wallace a couple of years, but the team seems positioned to contend in '09-'10.

so who's available? the main 3B FAs in '09 (other than Glaus) seem to be Joe Crede, Casey Blake, Dallas McPherson, and Nomar Garciaparra. Nomar shouldn't be considered for obvious reasons, and it definitely seems possible that Blake and/or Crede will be re-signed by their respective clubs. both are solid, if unremarkable, but both are on the wrong side of 30 and have had some injury concerns. they will be the top two non-Glaus options for teams looking to upgrade 3B in the off-season, so they will probably be priced out of the Cards' range anyway.

McPherson, however, is younger than the others (27 this year), is destroying AAA (1.121 OPS with 30 HR already), and has already proved that he is capable of holding his own in the bigs when healthy. he had a back injury that hurt him with the Angels, but he seems to be fully recovered from that. the dude is a monster talent and probably won't cost as much as any of the other options, especially if the Marlins decide to re-sign Cantu. i wanted the Cards to take a flyer on McPherson this past off-season (he ended up signing for less that $0.5mn), and i hope that they have their eye on him for next year. a 2-3 year contract could bridge the gap to Wallace without costing too much cash and subtracting zero prospects. it would be a little bit of a gamble, but i don't think a prohibitive one, and the potential pay-off is huge.

other (realistic) possibilities include going after Andy Marte (if the Tribe re-sign Blake), who will be out of options next year, but his star has certainly faded since '04-'05. the only other FA 3B are guys like Ensberg and Helms who are... uninspiring, to say the least.

thoughts?

Final Draft Order; Potential Cardinals Picks?

kindred — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:22:29 -0000

find it here. The Cardinals have the 13th overall pick, as known, but also picked up a 1st-round supplemental (#39) because Percival was a Type-B FA. i'm confused; i thought the Cards didn't offer Percival arbitration because of a "gentleman's agreement" last year when he signed a minor-league contract, and thus lost the opportunity to pick up a supp. pick. anybody know how this worked?

the Cards have 3 picks in the top 60. does anybody know of a good scouting report of potential picks this year that we could cross-reference to the draft order to get some idea of who the Cards might pick? also, do the Cards get an extra pick since they couldn't come to an agreement with Russell, or does that rule only apply for the first 3 rounds.

(as a quick aside, the Cards take a lot of heat for not signing all their picks, or for not drafting guys they think they won't be able to sign. this year, LAA, Boston, Philly, Houston, and ATL all have supp. 2nd or 3rd round picks b/c they couldn't sign their pick from last year. all of these clubs have a reputation for drafting pretty well, and none of them are thought of as cheap-skates w/r/t payroll. just thought a little comparison is appropriate.)

Bill James on Craig Biggio

kindred — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:48:54 -0000

A nice little article in Slate, about how Biggio was one of James' favorite players for years before the sheen wore off. Money quote:

"I'll still say today, if there was a draft and you could look ahead and say, "OK, that guy's going to be Ken Griffey, that guy's going to be Frank Thomas, that guy's going to be Juan Gonzalez, that guy's going to be Tom Glavine, that guy's going to be Craig Biggio," just give me Biggio and I'll take my chances. Maybe that's not what the numbers say is the right answer, but Biggio was the guy who would do whatever needed to be done. Makes it a lot easier to build a team.

And then the story went on a little too long. You ever go to a movie, it' s pretty good for about an hour and a half but then the story is over but it's like the director can't find the ending so it goes on for another half-hour looking for some way to tie things together? That's kind of Biggio's career; it was over, and then it went on for quite awhile."

It's a nice bit of perspective on Biggio, from the obvious perspective of a non-partisan baseball fan. I've never especially liked Biggio, probably because he killed the Cards too many times through sheer peskiness, but I've grown to appreciate him a bit more after reading it.

My favorite Biggio moment is still having him get thrown out at second trying to stretch his 3,000th hit from a single to a double, but he really was a good player for a long time.

http://www.slate.com/id/2184797/nav/tap3/

Rolen to Brewers/Edmonds to Texas?

kindred — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:29:05 -0000

Rumors not yet heard:

apparently, the Brewers have had internal discussions regarding acquiring Rolen. This doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense unless Braun moves to LF, but it's a rumor I haven't heard yet. Who would they offer in return? If the Cards eat some of Rolen's salary, then Capuano could be available. This doesn't seem very likely, even ignoring the fact that intra-division trades are rare, but I'm bored and interested in any Cardinals-related discussion not involving TLR's DUI/Silva/Lohse/or SS.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/11/brewers-rumors.html

Apparently the Rangers are looking for a CF since they missed out on Hunter, aren't very interested in Rowand, and aren't getting anywhere with Crisp until Boston finishes with its negotiations for Santana. Candidates apparently include Pierre, Baldelli, and Edmonds. Pierre seems stupid because of the money and years, Baldelli's value is completely unknown at this point, so that leaves Edmonds. I would think that the Cards want Edmonds to retire as a Cardinal, and he's a 10-5 player and might very well veto a trade to TX, but again... I'm bored. I can't imagine that TX would offer much in the way of propects or valuable MLB-ready talent, and the Cards don't have much OF depth with Encarnacion out and Ankiel still a relatively unknown quantity, but stranger things have happened.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/11/starks-latest-e.html

thoughts?

Cubs Moves

kindred — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:40:08 -0000

The Cubs have already been pretty active, shipping Jones to Detroit for Infante (and salary help) and Monroe to the Twins for PTBNL. they're switching Dempster to the rotation (thank you, God!), and are apparently packaging a deal to try to get Carl Crawford (Hill + Marmol enough? if not, some deal including Pie, or Cedeno). they're also rumored to be making a run at Fukodome and a couple of Japanese pitchers. if they start Dempster and trade Marmol, i'm sure they'll go after some closer. maybe not Cordero, but perhaps a trade for Fuentes or something.

i've gotta hand it to them. they aren't content with a team that was probably the best in the NL from June till the end of the season. they're upping the ante for the rest of the division as well. the way they are building the team, the Cards will have a difficult time contending in '09 or '10 either, much less '08.

A Question for Those Who Hate the Piniero Signing

kindred — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:22:58 -0000

I understand the frustration with the Piniero signing. I share some of it. But I've been trained as an economist, and we have in rule in that profession: when asked whether a given economic decision is wise, the first response should always be "compared to what?"

This seems to be the most pressing question. If the Cards didn't sign Piniero (at a below-market rate, no less), what would you have liked to see? The other options seem to be:

Hope for the best with Mulder, and give 60+ starts to Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth.
Hope for the best with Mulder, and sign somebody else, like Carlos Silva (presumably for a lot more money and years than Piniero, plus foregone draft picks), plus give 30+ starts to Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth
Assume the worst for Mulder, and be prepared to give 90+ starts to Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth.
Assume the worst for Mulder, sign somebody like Silva, and give 60+ starts to Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth.
Throw '08 away, and hope for the best in '09.
Trade Duncan for a pitcher (e.g. Noah Lowry), who may not be appreciably better than Piniero, but will be cheaper.

As we should have learned by now, counting on Mulder to be healthy and/or good is a fool's game. It seems equally dubious to assume that Reyes will suddenly materialize into a quality MLB pitcher (at least in StL), that Thompson will out-perform his peripherals, Wellemeyer will be able to pitch into (much less through) the 5th inning, or that Maroth can get anybody out at all.

This also disregards the likelihood of injury, which is a strong possibility. Mulder is an obvious candidate, but Looper's arm may have taken on extra strain this year, Wellemeyer was injured for part of last season, and Wainwright has never thrown as many innings as he did in '07. This staff looks very fragile to me, and has no in-house replacement options.

There is another option, of course: converting Franklin into a starter. he might provide similar production to Piniero at a lower cost. This is, by the way, still an option; he would simply take 30 starts away from Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth. We could certainly use both, if they could each provide 180 league-average innings (or something close to it). we'd have a very-average starting staff, but there are certainly worse fates.

Not only that, but signing Piniero does not preclude a trade or other signing. It is still possible that Duncan could be traded. Several teams, like SanFran, have a need for OBP and power in the OF position, and some young pitching to trade. if such a move could be followed by trading Reyes + mid-level prospect to Philly for Bourne (or a 3-team trade with Tor.?), then several birds are killed. the Piniero trade doesn't make this impossible. in fact, it makes it more likely, since Reyes becomes a bit more expendable.

it is still possible for the Cards to contend in '08 in the NL Central, esp. if Rolen rebounds, we get any production out of 2B, Ankiel contributes at least 80% of his Aug./Sept.'07 level, we get something approaching league-average pitching, and we stay relatively healthy (i.e. no long DL stint for Pujols).

in my opinion, Piniero moves us closer to that goal, not further away. and his signing doesn't mortgage the future. yes, it's an uninspired signing, but that doesn't mean its impact won't be positive.

so I ask: what should the Cardinals have done, rather than signing Piniero? Or, if you prefer, what should they do now that they have signed him?