Q and A - The Whitey Herzog Cardinals

Reese Kaplan asks -

The Whitey Herzog Cardinals teams were built on speed and defense.  The recent Mets teams were built around power and pitching.  Which approach is better? 

Michael Maar says –

I'll start by pointing out that the one constant in building a winning team is great pitching.  Whitey Herzog's teams had it, the '86 Mets had it, and every dynasty you can think of had it.

There's no single answer to this question - teams have won with both approaches.  The key is to be dominant in one way or another.  So it's not good enough to be able to hit HRs, but rather you have to have dominant power, and be able to hit HRs against top pitching to win in the playoffs.  That's not too common.  If you're going speed and defense like the old Cardinal teams, then you better have high batting averages/OBP, be aggressive with that speed like the Cardinals or even the 2015 Royals, and have clutch hitters. 

I would say that it's best to be solid across the board and have lots of ways you can win a game rather than selling out areas for a single approach.  Even the 80's Cardinals had Jack Clark bashing HRs at key moments.  The '86 Mets had pretty solid Defense, and a few guys could steal a base when needed.  Putting all of your winning strategy in one basket of hitting HRs or stealing bases leaves you open to having your overall offense shut down.  Neglecting defense for the sake of HRs often leads to the ball finding the wrong guy in a big moment.  Overall, I go old school with pitching, strong defense especially up the middle, and then look for a balanced attack with at least 3 guys who can hit 25+ HRs, some high OBP/BA table setters with decent speed, and overall hitters who pass the  clutch eye test. 

Jack Flynn says –

There is no singular approach to constructing a baseball team. There are only "best practices," which essentially boil down to getting the best players you can and maximizing their skills while minimizing their shortcomings.

Of course, the caveat to this is that you must employ players whose skill sets complement each other. Speed is not particularly useful in players without a high on-base percentage. (Hence the old adage - you can't steal first base.) Defense is not particularly useful if you don't have good hitters to score more runs then you are preventing, or pitchers who are frequently allowing batted balls that land over the heads of good defenders and into the hands of spectators. Pitching is not particularly useful without good defenders to convert batted balls into outs. (Sandy Alderson doesn't seem to subscribe to this theory, but I do.)

Power - in particular, the ability to hit a home run - is the only "skill" that is essentially self-reliant. A run is scored when a home run is hit. It doesn't matter how good the pitcher generally is, or how airtight the defense may be behind that pitcher. Home run trots are not timed for anything other than curiosity, and the run goes on the board regardless of whether it takes a batter 15 seconds or 30 seconds to round the bases.

Were I a betting man, I would wager that a team with home run hitters batting behind players with a high on base percentage will win more games than it loses.

Tom Brennan says –

Let's say after the Jay Bruce and Yo Adrian acquisitions you really still have $30 million to spend...how would you spend it to optimize 2018

Mack says –

God, did I love Herzog ball… especially the 5 million 95+mph relievers that just kept coming out of the pen during the playoffs.

And who can argue with that success? They were always in the playoffs.

I vote for speed and defense, though we are currently long off that approach.

           

Mike Friere says –

            Interesting question, Reese.  

My first response was angst, as it seemed that the Mets' lack of success in the 80's was primarily due to the Cardinals.  Memories being what they are, I decided to research the "White Rat's" career managerial record and I was surprised at what I found. 

He managed four different teams over an eighteen year career and had a career winning percentage of .532, which translates to an average season of 86-76 in today's 162 game format.  Eleven of his eighteen years were with the Cardinals and his numbers with them were similar with regards to the winning percentage.  What was odd is that he had three really good years (1982, 1985 and 1987), to include a World Series Championship and two NL Pennants (the last two seasons were at the Mets' expense in some ways, hence my angst).  The rest of his career with the Cardinals was rather ordinary, which isn't what I thought on first blush.

When his teams were going well, they played excellent fundamental baseball and they could literally run you out of the building.  An innocent walk to someone like Vince Coleman would turn into a couple of stolen bases and then a dribbler from Tommy Herr to the right side of the infield would score a run.  They consistently did this to their opponents and when you combine that with their pitching and defensive prowess, you routinely lost to them by a run or two.  It always felt sort of "cheap" but it was successful more often than not.  Plus, speed and defense never go into a slump, right?

Sandy Alderson does not share the same views on speed and defense, it seems.  If a player he likes (power hitter) also happens to run a bit or can play some defense, then that's a plus, but it does not seem to go along with the Money Ball philosophy.  Power hitting teams can light up a scoreboard and combined with solid pitching, will be successful as the aforementioned Cardinals teams, albeit in a different way.  The problem as I see it is that power hitting teams can and do go into slumps, usually when they face good pitching.  Furthermore, in a short playoff series, fundamental breakdowns usually decide the outcome (refer to the Mets/Royals series in 2015).

If I had to choose, I would take speed and defense every time.  Especially with a team that features a strong pitching staff and one that plays in a pitcher's park, but that's just me (or perhaps my 1980's "Cardinals PTSD" speaking).

Reese Kaplan says –

Speed and defense don't go into slumps.  Good pitching can defeat power and good hitting can defeat pitching.  I think the probability of success is greater when you create a team that contains best-of-breed gloves and runners.

Of course, small ball is not as "sexy" as are homers and strikeouts, but there are a great many people who have had spectacular careers on the glove and foot speed sides of the equation.

Considering the club has lost in 5 of the previous 7 years of the current regime's approach, maybe it's time to go in a new direction (or any direction, not just making it up as you go along...a plan would be nice.)  Chicks may dig the long ball, but the Cardinals were in the thick of it year after year, not just in leap years or when Halley's Comet makes an appearance.