Can they be better than everyone expects?
As the Cardinals offense appears to be experiencing its Spring nadir, I sense that readers anxiety about said offense is reaching its zenith. So, I thought I’d try a little sunny-side-up for today.
Various projection systems are out and generally view the Cardinals performing in the mediocre range that revolves around .500 (81-81). Some say 78, some say 83. You get the point. On the other hand, the Cardinals like to say they could be better than people think. What could lead them to that conclusion? I have no idea how the season will turn out, but I thought I’d take a turn at mapping out a roadmap from a front-office point of view and seeing where it might lead.
Here is a projection of what might happen
Various published projections are out, and some averaging of same can be found in this excellent article by our own Dr. Howl here. I won’t repeat that or offer any contrary opinions. It was good stuff (and I loved the graphics).
One challenge of published projections is that they are usually based on individual WAR outcomes, which are significantly impacted by both playing time and health, neither of which I have much idea about going into this season. Even with an explicit strategy of getting young guys playing time even if it impacts wins and losses (if you fully believe this will come to pass), it is really hard to get a grasp on how much certain guys will play. Of course, it’s also really hard to estimate how well certain guys will perform, if and when given playing time. My suspicion is that there are enough young, not established players, that playing time will still have to be portioned out at least somewhat based on performance. And most definitely it is not within my ability to project health among the players.
I started by following the smart-sounding guidance to NOT add together individual WAR projections to get a team WAR. Instead, I took published projections (mostly the mid range values) and pressed, formed, flaked and fitted them into position projections instead of individual projections. Positions are a little easier to imagine, because they will get a set amount of playing time, no matter who plays. I used this approach to see how it looked and trying to get an idea of how the front office (and manager) might begin to approach the season.
This approach tries to establish who will play where primarily and then identify who will fill in (in the case of platoon advantages or expected time shares). This also serves to fill in what a position might expect to get in cases of injury or non-performance, as discussed in the details below the chart.
Catcher is the first of many positions where playing time seems like it could vary quite a bit. Will they map it out as a true time share, or will Herrera get more bulk at DH and Pages more time behind the dish? I suspect that one thing the Cardinal manager needs to do this spring is figure out how to figure this out, so they aren’t playing roster frogger every night. Does 2.5 WAR between the two of them (and any possible Contreras contribution) seem achievable?
First Base – Similar discussion. Burleson or Contreras? Time share? Left-right platoon? On the surface, in a normal season, my guess would be that Contreras will get the bulk of the PT unless his defense is very poor (which I tend to doubt will be a problem) and Burleson clearly better. But this year, the “play the young guys” approach would seem to contradict that. So, who knows? Same challenge for management. Come up with a rubric so that the decision making isn’t daily roster roulette. I factored 3 WAR figuring Contreras’ bat would produce the bulk that WAR (he pretty much did that in half a season in 2024), but even if something happened to Contreras, Burly might not be far off that number, particularly if the bulk of his PT plays into the platoon advantage and his defense is more workable at first than it was in the outfield. One of the interesting wrinkles here is … what happens if both Burly and Contreras start out strong? A good problem to encounter, I suppose.
Second Base – Yet again, same discussion. Who plays and how much? Will Donovan be here or LF? If Arenado stays, does Gorman get major reps here? What about Saggese? Even if Sags starts at AAA, it seems like there are 3 guys here who could each possibly produce 1 WAR at the keystone before the season ends, no?
Shortstop – One the few stable positions on the diamond. Health (or sophmore slump) could be a back-breaker for the season as this position WAR is based almost entirely on the supposition that 1) Winn won’t get hurt and 2) he won’t have too bad of a sophomore slump. If either occurs, it will be hard to hit this WAR target. I’m not even sure who would stand out there. If it is a slump, they will let Winn work through it. If is injury, I’d hazard a guess Barrero, taking defense over offense.
Third – Many would pre-suppose that if Arenado is not traded, that he will get most of the PT at third. It seems fair to expect him to be at or around 3 WAR (perhaps 2.5 on the lower end of things), and a fill-in (Gorman?) might add a little here to get to 3 WAR overall.
All around, the infield looks decent, maybe even pretty solid, with more guys than there are spots. A good problem to have but challenging to have 2 stalwart veterans when what you really want to do is get your young guys playing time. This will be interesting to watch how it plays out. We should be mindful that a young man by the name of Wetherholt looms. I did not factor him in, but he could force the issue.
On to the outfield. Can I skip that part? Originally, I started to just project WAR for the entire outfield as one unit, since the number is likely to be so low that splitting it would seem pointless. But I broke it apart after much internal back-and-forth. It is certainly not hard to see where the Cardinals need to improve.
Left-Field – I figured that Nootbar would see the bulk of PT here, but also recognize that Donovan may play a bit in LF and Noot to CF. At the end of the day, I decided that even if this occurred with any frequency, the WAR layout probably wouldn’t change much. LF might be a bit lower if Donovan plays out there, and CF might be a bit higher with Noot, but the net to team WAR is neutral because they both will play and they are both 2.5 – 3.0 ish WAR producers (given health).
Center Field – A repeating theme. Who plays? Siani? Scott? Nootbar? I can be convinced that Siani will come close to his 2024 defensive value playing CF regularly in 2025. I doubt he will hit. If he falls down worse than expected on either side, Scott will get a shot. I figure between the two, 1 WAR is probably a safe net value to project, much of it from the defensive side. Anything more would have to be considered icing on the cake.
Right Field – I think going into the season, the Cardinals don’t have a “who plays?” question here. It will start out as Walker (given health). But given how wide the error bars on his projectable performance are and given what we’ve seen to-date, I could see him back in Memphis with negative WAR as much as could see him breaking out. If he would only get back to 2023 form, at least. I figured RF would become a menagerie of Burly, Koperniak, Walker and maybe even Chase Davis by years-end, and went with 1.5 total WAR. I figured if I went higher, it meant Walker breaking out (which I’m not about to project) and who knows what that might look like? I feel like even 1.5 is a bit of stretch, though. Can it really be worse?
Starters – Since the intended rotation slots seem so defined, and injuries are assumed, it seemed more practical to go on personal projections for these guys. They will start Spring with Gray, Fedde, Mikolas, Pallante and Matz as the starting 5, with McGreevy in the wings when anyone is hurt or performance falters. Based on spring performance, they may swap in McGreevy and swap out Pallante, but the impact on net WAR appears near zero. They seem to have a lot of 1.0 – 2.0 WAR plug-and-play types, such that injury wouldn’t be that impactful, and maybe almost welcome for the opportunity that creates. Matz out, McGreevy in probably doesn’t change the group outcome much. Mikolas out, Matthews in probably ends up about the same, too. So I went with 11 WAR as a group, and it’ll be a team effort. As with Winn, losing Gray would be a tough blow and result in under-running that target, but anyone else, meh. Next man up…
Relievers – Reliever performance is so volatile, there was no way I was going to try and estimate any one pitcher. I figured that this group would probably, net-net, be about the same as last year, so I put 4.0 WAR on the whole group. The Cardinals sequenced their reliever performance unusually well last year, so random sequencing may make in-game outcomes worse this year (ie. maybe more blown saves), but I suspect the FIP and related WAR outcome will be similar to 2024. They may use more pitchers to get to that level this year, but again, that is their intent. Use the young guys. Since the bullpen is top-heavy, an injury to Helsley could sink this projected WAR value considerably.
Summary
Given good health and performance with Gray, Winn and Helsley, that adds up to about 37-ish WAR, or about an 85-win team. Not good, not horrible. A little better than national projections, giving rise to why Cardinals management thinks they could be better than expected. With this team, there is probably more downside risk because of young guy volatility (can they all vary to the downside?), but not much health risk outside of Gray or Winn and Helsley. Anyone else they lose; they have someone to plug in. The folks who view things through the “glass is half full” prism call this depth.
Some ramifications
As I look at the outfield, it’s really easy to imagine that Chase Davis has a very clear path to the MLB if he performs. Or Nathan Church. That doesn’t mean I’m projecting that will happen, just observing the open pathway. I mean, this team only has 1 true MLB outfielder if Siani can’t hit (which to me is more likely than not). It does make it obvious that the Cardinals are going to need to acquire an outfielder, either at the deadline or next off-season, even if Davis breaks out. Always good to plan ahead, as you never know when opportunity may come knocking. The Padres and Twins both look like teams that could go into owner drama driven tear-down at any time.
I’m expecting two different approaches to pitching. In the first half, it will be plug-and-play based on health and performance, with guys like Graceffo, Robberse, et.al. getting chances as the inevitable opportunities arise in either the bullpen or rotation. These opportunities will come about due to injury, under-performance and scheduling quirks, and will be aplenty. If they don’t, that means things are going exceedingly well, and that would also be a good problem to have.
Then, I expect, in the second half, the team is going to look to start plugging in Matthews and Hence and possibly Roby, allowing them to pass the other guys if their MiLB performance warrants. Although Matthews may be closer to being ready, Hence might be first up by virtue of his spot on the 40-man roster (this feature breaks all ties). There are probably three or four 2026 (maybe even all 5) rotation spots to consider and they are going to need to know if their prime guys are ready.
Possible outcomes
First a level set. It really doesn’t seem to matter what certain guys do this year, so much. What if Matz gets hurt again? Big deal. Plug a young guy in. What if the Mikolas decline worsens? They live with it for half a season, then start easing him out with someone younger. With him, innings probably matter more than FIP. Both those guys will be gone after 2025, so anything they get from them is a net positive. With Contreras and Arenado, same thing on the positional side. If either struggles with decline, young guys will gradually take up more playing time. So be it. After this year, Arenado’s salary will be much easier to move. Realistically, though, we comfortably can count on 2.5-3 WAR from Arenado, factoring in decline, so the downside risk isn’t high. Same with Contreras. They know what they are getting. If Contreras hits, but struggles defensively, Burly will scoop up the PT on the field and Contreras will shift to more DH.
What if none of the young guys is able to take a step forward? Walker continues to struggle both defensively and offensively. Gorman can’t fix the hole in his swing. Burleson continues his high O-swing% ways and is BABIP-streaky as a result. Pages struggles offensively and Herrera struggles defensively. Saggese can’t sustain his “better swing decisions” approach. Siani’s .590 OPS is a real thing. This is kind of the worst-case scenario. What happens? Bluntly, that means next off-season is a total tear down. I’m of the personal opinion that it is better to find that out now (in 2025) and not draw it out. That said, I am worried there won’t be enough ABs to clearly delineate. This is a topic I will explore in more depth in a couple of weeks.
What if the young pitching doesn’t step forward? Say that none of the Memphis Mafia can get major league hitters out regularly. Pallante takes a step back to what he’s been. McGreevy can’t repeat the success he had in limited time last year, if given a larger role. Liberatore can’t quite find the traction he needs. Maybe Fernandez was a one-shot wonder. Roby and Hence continue struggles with arm health. That’s an ugly scenario. Moreso for 2026 and beyond than 2025. It’s important to know how this turns out and that information is what the 2025 season should harvest. In the case of pitching, a total failure will leave them with all of one reliable rotation piece (we’d hope) for 2026. I guess they end up back at total tear-down and rebuild in this scenario, also.
I’d offer up the suspicion that Gray, Contreras and Arenado might come to view their NTC’s differently if the worst-case scenario plays out. Those decisions could jump-start a wholesale tear-down.
What about the best-case scenario? Maybe Gorman hits enough to push Donovan to LF and Noot to CF, and Noot stays healthy enough to achieve the results many expect. Saggese plays everywhere and helps off-set the right/left imbalance of this lineup. Maybe Walker shows his 2023 form with a little better defense. Contreras grabs the reins at first, and Pages and Herrera are both what we saw last year, especially that .800 OPS from Ivan. The pitching holds up with Pallante and McGreevy continuing to solidify the rotation. Winn convinces us that sophomore slump isn’t a thing. Fedde is not a one-shot wonder and neither is Fernandez. And Roby finds his footing (health-wise) and forces his way into the bullpen as a power arm.
Of course, the middle (most likely) scenario is that some will advance and establish themselves, some will muddle and some will fail. But which ones? It seems like the key to this season is apportioning enough playing time so that they know without doubt by the end of the year, so that they know what they have and what they really need next off-season. The most key information for the end of the 2025 season will be – do they need to add a little to be competitive, or do they need to tear down and start over. I doubt even they know.
One thing seems like it will be a subtle key is to apportion enough pitching opportunities BEFORE the trading deadline, so they know how much and what kind of pitching they need before they start fielding offers for Fedde, Matz, Helsley and maybe one or 3 of the left-handers.
I am terribly curious how all this plays out this year. From an analytical and writing standpoint, it will likely not be boring, although there will most certainly be some rough patches.
A comparison to Baseball Prospectus
Only because it comes out as I am putting the finishing touches on this article, I’ll compare and contrast my view with theirs (subscription required). They are probably smarter, and definitely with different bias’.
In a reminder of how tiny differences can skew an outcome from bad to good, they project a 78-win team (much worse than my projection of 85 wins). Where did the 7-win variance come from? Primarily two places:
- They are definitely not bullish on our SS. They project 1.6 WAR for Winn and company. 1.4 wins worse than mine. I didn’t see that one coming. I’ll take the over on 1.6, thank you.
- They project this bullpen to be barely above replacement level. That is 4 wins right there. And I didn’t view 4 wins as all that good of a projection.
The rest are minor variations … 2.5 at second instead of 3, .4 in CF instead of 1, 1.2 in RF instead of 1.5. 10 WAR from starters instead of 11. What I get from this is my work was slightly more optimistic than theirs. Fair enough. Notably, they are way more optimistic about third (3.8) than I was (3.0). I’d love to see that outcome, but I’d not put any money on that.
Which positions do you think I’ve been too optimistic on? Or where am I too pessimistic?