PDA

View Full Version : Pods to KC


dickallen15
01-08-2010, 08:34 AM
He's signing with KC if he passes a physical. No terms announced as of yet.

doublem23
01-08-2010, 08:42 AM
Are the Royals unaware they can acquire players from the other 28 teams?

dickallen15
01-08-2010, 08:48 AM
He's going to play CF. I guess 2010 isn't the year the Royals turn things around.

russ99
01-08-2010, 08:52 AM
Good luck Pods, don't come back and haunt us too much...

FarmerAndy
01-08-2010, 09:05 AM
Brian Anderson has to love this. Not that he really had a chance to be a starter anyway....... but after getting a stay of execution on his MLB career and a fresh start somewhere else, he's ending up in line behind the same people. They should go sign Mackowiak or Erstad now. :)

october23sp
01-08-2010, 09:07 AM
Too bad he's in the division and I'll have to root against him 18 times a year.

ChiSoxGirl
01-08-2010, 09:35 AM
He's signing with KC if he passes a physical. No terms announced as of yet.

Boy, this day just keeps getting better and better for me. :whiner:

russ99
01-08-2010, 09:45 AM
Brian Anderson has to love this. Not that he really had a chance to be a starter anyway....... but after getting a stay of execution on his MLB career and a fresh start somewhere else, he's ending up in line behind the same people. They should go sign Mackowiak or Erstad now. :)

Maybe BA should worry about hitting a baseball and not his rightful playing time and who's ahead of him... Had he done that, he'd still be here.

I'd think David DeJesus would be more competition for Pods in KC's outfield anyway.

Hopefully Scott can stay healthy and help the Royals beat Minnesota and Detroit often (and not so much the Sox) in 2010. :D:

voodoochile
01-08-2010, 09:51 AM
Brian Anderson has to love this. Not that he really had a chance to be a starter anyway....... but after getting a stay of execution on his MLB career and a fresh start somewhere else, he's ending up in line behind the same people. They should go sign Mackowiak or Erstad now. :)

I'm thinking Jermaine Dye might want to finish his career in KC...

Shoeless
01-08-2010, 10:36 AM
He's going to play CF. I guess 2010 isn't the year the Royals turn things around.

I remember when that was our solution...

Thank God that's over

tstrike2000
01-08-2010, 11:05 AM
Are the Royals unaware they can acquire players from the other 28 teams?

Maybe there's some sort of hidden NAFTA agreement between the Sox and Royals that no one else knows about.

gobears1987
01-08-2010, 11:21 AM
Heard on the PA last year:

Sox fans on your feet for your 2010 Kansas City Royals!!!

spawn
01-08-2010, 11:22 AM
Hmm...the list of former Sox going to the Royals grows longer:

Wilson Betemit
Chris Getz
Josh Fields
Brian Anderson
Pods

That's it. The Royals will win the Central this year.

gobears1987
01-08-2010, 11:28 AM
Now that I realize that last year's Sox games were really played by the 2010 Kansas City Royals, should I feel dirty or something? I think I'm going to take a shower right now. I really need it after this realization.:o:

DSpivack
01-08-2010, 11:35 AM
I'm thinking Jermaine Dye might want to finish his career in KC...

Hey, Johnny Damon is still available, too!

To think that they once had an OF of Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye and Carlos Beltran. Not too shabby...

tstrike2000
01-08-2010, 11:36 AM
Hmm...the list of former Sox going to the Royals grows longer:

Wilson Betemit
Chris Getz
Josh Fields
Brian Anderson
Pods

That's it. The Royals will win the Central this year.

Of course. Especially when one of the guys on that list is going to hit .275 with 25 dingers, with enough AB's, coupled with the reigning Cy Young winner, how can you go wrong?

soxinem1
01-08-2010, 11:42 AM
KC can still get MacDougal back!!

PalehosePlanet
01-08-2010, 11:49 AM
KC can still get MacDougal back!!

Not to mention Carrasco and Dotel.

gobears1987
01-08-2010, 11:53 AM
Hey, Johnny Damon is still available, too!

To think that they once had an OF of Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye and Carlos Beltran. Not too shabby...

Yeah, 5 years ago!

esbrechtel
01-08-2010, 12:56 PM
Maybe there's some sort of hidden NAFTA agreement between the Sox and Royals that no one else knows about.

:lol:

Rocky Soprano
01-08-2010, 12:58 PM
I remember when that was our solution...

Thank God that's over

Yeah since Pods was horrible for us last year!

doublem23
01-08-2010, 01:36 PM
Too bad he's in the division and I'll have to root against him 18 times a year.

You can still root for him to do well individually. I don't care if Scotty Pods plays his butt off against us, so long as the other 8 guys remember that they're still on the Royals.

SI1020
01-08-2010, 02:37 PM
I found the comment about his fielding to be interesting.

http://www.kansascity.com/116/story/1671531.html?storylink=omni_popular

TomBradley72
01-08-2010, 03:11 PM
I found the comment about his fielding to be interesting.

http://www.kansascity.com/116/story/1671531.html?storylink=omni_popular


"Has a good reputation as a CF"....:kneeslap::kneeslap::kneeslap:

october23sp
01-08-2010, 03:16 PM
You can still root for him to do well individually. I don't care if Scotty Pods plays his butt off against us, so long as the other 8 guys remember that they're still on the Royals.

Okay good, I love me some Scotty P.

russ99
01-08-2010, 03:47 PM
Of course. Especially when one of the guys on that list is going to hit .275 with 25 dingers, with enough AB's, coupled with the reigning Cy Young winner, how can you go wrong?

Josh Fields is going to hit .275 with 25 dingers? :D:

JorgeFabregas
01-08-2010, 04:06 PM
I found the comment about his fielding to be interesting.

http://www.kansascity.com/116/story/1671531.html?storylink=omni_popular
They referred to his UZR/150 in CF from 2009. There's a real sample size problem with that. His career UZR/150 in CF is below average (big surprise).

It's Dankerific
01-08-2010, 04:13 PM
Brian must actually really go out there and kick puppies. he has the worst luck.

DumpJerry
01-08-2010, 04:20 PM
"Has a good reputation as a CF"....:kneeslap::kneeslap::kneeslap:
No, it's true! Just ask Carl Crawford!

spawn
01-08-2010, 04:21 PM
Pods contract: 1.75 with incentives that could push it to $2 million. There is a $2 million option for 2010 that Pods could void if he reaches 525 plate appearances. I wonder what he was asking from KW? If this is all it took to sign, I would think KW would've jumped at it. My guess is Pods realized he was running out of options and had to sign somewhere.

DSpivack
01-08-2010, 04:28 PM
Pods contract: 1.75 with incentives that could push it to $2 million. There is a $2 million option for 2001 that Pods could void if he reaches 525 plate appearances. I wonder what he was asking from KW? If this is all it took to sign, I would think KW would've jumped at it. My guess is Pods realized he was running out of options and had to sign somewhere.

He got an option for the past? :scratch:

spawn
01-08-2010, 04:29 PM
He got an option for the past? :scratch:
What can I say? I'm a dumbass.:redface:

DSpivack
01-08-2010, 04:30 PM
What can I say? I'm a dumbass.:redface:

Or, maybe Pods was Keir Dullea in a previous life.

Sargeant79
01-08-2010, 04:32 PM
Pods contract: 1.75 with incentives that could push it to $2 million. There is a $2 million option for 2001 that Pods could void if he reaches 525 plate appearances. I wonder what he was asking from KW? If this is all it took to sign, I would think KW would've jumped at it. My guess is Pods realized he was running out of options and had to sign somewhere.

I'm guessing Pods was asking for much more than that from Kenny. In fact, Kenny probably even offered him more than that based on what the leadoff market after Figgins was looking like earlier in the offseason. When Kenny moved on, Pods thought he would get other offers at least similar to what we were offering, but they never materialized.

Simply put: Pods (or his agent) overplayed his hand.

spawn
01-08-2010, 04:34 PM
Or, maybe Pods was Keir Dullea in a previous life.
Yeah, you've lost me there.

spawn
01-08-2010, 04:34 PM
I'm guessing Pods was asking for much more than that from Kenny. In fact, Kenny probably even offered him more than that based on what the leadoff market after Figgins was looking like earlier in the offseason. When Kenny moved on, Pods thought he would get other offers at least similar to what we were offering, but they never materialized.

Simply put: Pods (or his agent) overplayed his hand.
Isn't that what I said? :scratch::wink:

DSpivack
01-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Yeah, you've lost me there.

2001 joke, sorry.

asindc
01-08-2010, 04:40 PM
I've suspected all along that Pods had put too strong a bid in and did not want to back off it. Pods has been one of my favorites for years now, but I don't blame KW a bit for not letting that situation languish. I think the Sox are much better off anyway, despite my fondness for Pods. I wanted to see him return, but only if the club thought it made sense. I am glad to see him land a gig somewhere, though. Best of luck to him.

TomBradley72
01-08-2010, 04:43 PM
Brian must actually really go out there and kick puppies. he has the worst luck.

Brian will be 28 years old in April...if he cannot beat out Pods for the CF job at 28 it has nothing to due with bad luck. Unless Trey Hillman has it out for him just like Ozzie Guillen and Terry Francona did.

SOXSINCE'70
01-08-2010, 05:12 PM
Hey, Johnny Damon is still available, too!

To think that they once had an OF of Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye and Carlos Beltran. Not too shabby...

Yeah, 5 years ago!


More like 10 years ago, IMO.:D:

It's Dankerific
01-08-2010, 05:29 PM
Brian will be 28 years old in April...if he cannot beat out Pods for the CF job at 28 it has nothing to due with bad luck. Unless Trey Hillman has it out for him just like Ozzie Guillen and Terry Francona did.

I guess there is a chance that the Royals organization isn't as ass backwards as the White Sox in regards to player personnel. However, most places give the people making the most money the most chances.

Terry Francona was fine with BA. People like Bay and JD Drew are a bit better than people like Wise.

wassagstdu
01-08-2010, 07:19 PM
A one year contract, less than $2 MM. The Sox failure to sign Podsednik disgusts me.

It's Dankerific
01-08-2010, 07:20 PM
A one year contract, less than $2 MM. The Sox failure to sign Podsednik disgusts me.

I hope someone asks at Soxfest.

NLaloosh
01-08-2010, 07:43 PM
A one year contract, less than $2 MM. The Sox failure to sign Podsednik disgusts me.

Pods and Matsui/Vlad for $ 8 mil. ? That's not much more than they are paying Pierre this year.

soltrain21
01-08-2010, 07:55 PM
A one year contract, less than $2 MM. The Sox failure to sign Podsednik disgusts me.

I'm glad you know exactly how everything went. How do you know that he didn't want a bigger contract, and then realized NO team was going to take him for that after every viable lead off option just got snapped up? How do you know he didn't overplay his hand and had to settle for the contract from the Royals?

Or is this just another reason to hate on the mighty Sox brass?

DumpJerry
01-08-2010, 07:59 PM
A one year contract, less than $2 MM. The Sox failure to sign Podsednik disgusts me.
There is a 100% probability that Podsednik made a much larger multi-year demand to the Sox. Rather than get into a protracted negotiation with him, especially if Pod's agent made it sound like he wasn't moving down, the Sox went out and got Jones and Pierre as replacements.

After nobody bought into Pod's overinflated self-evaluation, the Royals were the only team willing to talk to him and he had to come down in price or be unemployed again.

Still disgusted?

oeo
01-08-2010, 07:59 PM
Pods was given a deadline, and didn't meet it. Kenny had to move on so he didn't get caught with his pants down.

I guess there is a chance that the Royals organization isn't as ass backwards as the White Sox in regards to player personnel.

The Royals have like one winning season in the past fifteen. Yup, they know what they're doing!

DumpJerry
01-08-2010, 08:03 PM
I guess there is a chance that the Royals organization isn't as ass backwards as the White Sox in regards to player personnel. However, most places give the people making the most money the most chances.

Terry Francona was fine with BA. People like Bay and JD Drew are a bit better than people like Wise.

Francona was fine with BA in AAA.

The Royals have like one winning season in the past fifteen. Yup, they know what they're doing!
Spot on. Instead of raising talent, the Royals now sign everyone else's rejects.

It's Dankerific
01-08-2010, 08:06 PM
The Royals have like one winning season in the past fifteen. Yup, they know what they're doing!

Talking the future not the past. and they have a lot less money. Both teams sucked last year, anyways. I guess if I wanted to, I could expand out your fifteen years to a few more to include all those great KC teams with Brett. Both have, what, one WS in 30 years?

Also, about Pods: I agree we shouldnt be upset at the Sox brass until someone asks them *** happened. I'd like to HEAR it from KW that Pods was not going to give us a similar deal rather than speculate from a biased perspective.

It's Dankerific
01-08-2010, 08:07 PM
Francona was fine with BA in AAA.


Except when, you know, he played BA and BA performed better than what we had in CF, here.

Frater Perdurabo
01-08-2010, 08:08 PM
In response to Lip's back-handed compliment, I think Pods had a nice season last year. I don't think he's washed up at all, especially if he has solved his groin issue.

But Pierre is better than Pods, has been more consistent and healthy than Pods throughout his career, and is more than a year younger than Pods.

oeo
01-08-2010, 08:11 PM
Talking the future not the past. and they have a lot less money. Both teams sucked last year, anyways. I guess if I wanted to, I could expand out your fifteen years to a few more to include all those great KC teams with Brett. Both have, what, one WS in 30 years?

What the hell makes you think they've changed? Because they have a few talented players? They always have a few. The problem is they never surround them with more talent and then end up trading them for younger talent before free agency. It's a constant loop with the Royals, they're a joke just like the Pirates.

Also, about Pods: I agree we shouldnt be upset at the Sox brass until someone asks them *** happened. I'd like to HEAR it from KW that Pods was not going to give us a similar deal rather than speculate from a biased perspective.

It's simple what happened: there was a deadline, Pods didn't budge, and the Sox moved on. It was out there in the media before the Pierre deal that Pods and his agent were given a deadline.

What would have happened if he sat around while Pods waited for a bigger deal, another team dealt for Pierre, and then Pods ends up signing elsewhere for the contract he was looking for? It's the pre-Swisher deal all over again: Kenny is caught with his pants down and has to overpay for someone. Or worse (and probably the case considering money), we have Kotsay or Jones starting everyday in the outfield.

DumpJerry
01-08-2010, 08:12 PM
I'd like to HEAR it from KW that Pods was not going to give us a similar deal rather than speculate from a biased perspective.
By the time Pods lowered his demands, the Sox had moved on and replaced him. Nothing speculative about that.

It's Dankerific
01-08-2010, 08:15 PM
What the hell makes you think they've changed? Because they have a few talented players? They always have a few. The problem is they never surround them with more talent and then end up trading them for younger talent before free agency. It's a constant loop with the Royals, they're a joke just like the Pirates.


Picking up BA, for one! :D:


It's simple what happened: there was a deadline, Pods didn't budge, and the Sox moved on. It was out there in the media before the Pierre deal that Pods and his agent were given a deadline.

By the time Pods lowered his demands, the Sox had moved on and replaced him. Nothing speculative about that.

Lowered by how much? What was Pods' deadline, etc. etc. I'd like to know some of the facts. I'm inclined to believe it, but I'd like some confirmation from KW.

Or, I'd like KW to say we just wanted Pierre anyway.

Its not like KW has any problem burying former players.

oeo
01-08-2010, 08:18 PM
Or, I'd like KW to say we just wanted Pierre anyway.

I don't think so. I think he wanted Pods for his price. Pods wanted a bigger deal and the Sox didn't think he was worth it.

Its not like KW has any problem burying former players.

Oh please. Kenny is the reason Pods even has this major league deal. He did Pods a favor and signed him to minor league deal when he was sitting at home in April last year.

It's Dankerific
01-08-2010, 08:23 PM
Oh please. Kenny is the reason Pods even has this major league deal. He did Pods a favor and signed him to minor league deal when he was sitting at home in April last year.

I agree. which is why I start of very Anti-Pods. But I was trying to head off the suggestion that Kenny had to stay classy or some other such nonsense.

dickallen15
01-08-2010, 08:23 PM
I don't think so. I think he wanted Pods for his price. Pods wanted a bigger deal and the Sox didn't think he was worth it.



Oh please. Kenny is the reason Pods even has this major league deal. He did Pods a favor and signed him to minor league deal when he was sitting at home in April last year.

Pods wanted a bigger deal for sure, and there were a couple of reports that the White Sox interest was more for show anyway. I don't think they really believe Pods can do in 2010 what he did in 2009 and I agree with them.

KW did give Pods a job last year, but Pods should get most of the credit. He made the phone call and worked his way back.

JB98
01-08-2010, 08:39 PM
Except when, you know, he played BA and BA performed better than what we had in CF, here.

Anderson had a grand total of 17 at-bats in Boston. He made no impact with the Red Sox.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
01-08-2010, 08:58 PM
Anderson had a grand total of 17 at-bats in Boston. He made no impact with the Red Sox.

Hey, if BA got playing time in the ALDS, they would've swept the Angels, Yankees, and Phillies!

twinsuck
01-08-2010, 10:13 PM
KC is like a minor league affiliate of the White Sox. :D:

StillMissOzzie
01-08-2010, 11:40 PM
Pods contract: 1.75 with incentives that could push it to $2 million. There is a $2 million option for 2010 that Pods could void if he reaches 525 plate appearances. I wonder what he was asking from KW? If this is all it took to sign, I would think KW would've jumped at it. My guess is Pods realized he was running out of options and had to sign somewhere.

I think that Pods & his agent thought that they had KW & the Sox over a barrel and were asking for more years AND more $ per year. I'd bet that Pods turned down plenty more from the Sox.

I'm guessing Pods was asking for much more than that from Kenny. In fact, Kenny probably even offered him more than that based on what the leadoff market after Figgins was looking like earlier in the offseason. When Kenny moved on, Pods thought he would get other offers at least similar to what we were offering, but they never materialized.

Simply put: Pods (or his agent) overplayed his hand.

Ding ding ding ding ding! Winner winner chicken dinner!

A one year contract, less than $2 MM. The Sox failure to sign Podsednik disgusts me.

I think your ire is misplaced, but that's just my opinion.

SMO
:gulp:

voodoochile
01-08-2010, 11:43 PM
Aren't the Sox paying $2M this year and $3M next for Pierre? Why would anyone be upset about losing Pods if that's the case? I mean at the worst Pierre is a wash for Pods and the money is basically the same. Pierre might even be a nice upgrade depending on if Pods can stay healthy and repeat his numbers and how much better defensively Pierre is.

thedudeabides
01-08-2010, 11:50 PM
Pods and Matsui/Vlad for $ 8 mil. ? That's not much more than they are paying Pierre this year.

They are paying Pierre $3 million this year. That's a far cry from $8 million.

RedPinStripes
01-09-2010, 01:06 AM
Hey, Johnny Damon is still available, too!

To think that they once had an OF of Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye and Carlos Beltran. Not too shabby...

I don't know any KC fans, but they have to be bitter. They've drafted and developed GREAT players and they never hang on to any of them. The Sox haven't Developed too many superstars, but they hug onto them beside Bobby Bonilla! Thanks Hawk!

It's Dankerific
01-09-2010, 01:37 AM
Anderson had a grand total of 17 at-bats in Boston. He made no impact with the Red Sox.

Which makes the fact he outperformed the options here at home even more damning.

Nellie_Fox
01-09-2010, 02:29 AM
A one year contract, less than $2 MM. The Sox failure to sign Podsednik disgusts me.

Which makes the fact he outperformed the options here at home even more damning.What the hell are you talking about? Boston was obviously unimpressed. You just can't admit that he is a failure.

It's Dankerific
01-09-2010, 02:33 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Boston was obviously unimpressed. You just can't admit that he is a failure.

He's making more $$$ than Andruw Jones.

NLaloosh
01-09-2010, 02:38 AM
They are paying Pierre $3 million this year. That's a far cry from $8 million.

I read that the Sox are paying $ 9 mil. over 2 years for him.

Nellie_Fox
01-09-2010, 02:42 AM
He's making more $$$ than Andruw Jones.
And is thus that much bigger of a waste of money.

It's Dankerific
01-09-2010, 02:50 AM
And is thus that much bigger of a waste of money.

He had at least 3 other interested teams, as well. After all of the nay-sayers said he wouldn't get a job. ML contract, too. Guess some people like being WRONG, WRONG and WRONG.

Nellie_Fox
01-09-2010, 02:56 AM
He had at least 3 other interested teams, as well. After all of the nay-sayers said he wouldn't get a job. ML contract, too. Guess some people like being WRONG, WRONG and WRONG.We'll see.

doublem23
01-09-2010, 03:42 AM
He had at least 3 other interested teams, as well. After all of the nay-sayers said he wouldn't get a job. ML contract, too. Guess some people like being WRONG, WRONG and WRONG.

Ah yes, 28-year-old wash out signs to try and win a spot in the OF for the Royals... First step towards Cooperstown.

:rolling:

It's Dankerific
01-09-2010, 03:53 AM
Ah yes, 28-year-old wash out signs to try and win a spot in the OF for the Royals... First step towards Cooperstown.

:rolling:

This is related, how?

Don't worry, the question is rhetorical.

wassagstdu
01-09-2010, 09:43 AM
I'm glad you know exactly how everything went. How do you know that he didn't want a bigger contract, and then realized NO team was going to take him for that after every viable lead off option just got snapped up? How do you know he didn't overplay his hand and had to settle for the contract from the Royals?

Or is this just another reason to hate on the mighty Sox brass?

Guesses about what Pods was "demanding" are pure speculation. My disgust is fact.

doublem23
01-09-2010, 09:47 AM
Guesses about what Pods was "demanding" are pure speculation. My disgust is fact.

Have we really hit the point of being disgusted by not bringing back 30-something, injury-plagued, no-power, bad defense, corner OF whose had 1 good season the past 4?

Scotty Pods has a lot of sentimental value around here, I get that, but even if the Sox were to bring him back, he's no more valuable than a 4th OF-type guy, which the Sox already have covered.

CLR01
01-09-2010, 09:52 AM
Brian Anderson could kicked the snot out of Podsednik and steal his wife. Fact. Anyone remember that lame hug he gave Barrett after punching AJ? Anderson had to come from first to actually stick up for his teammate.

wassagstdu
01-09-2010, 10:14 AM
Have we really hit the point of being disgusted by not bringing back 30-something, injury-plagued, no-power, bad defense, corner OF whose had 1 good season the past 4?

Scotty Pods has a lot of sentimental value around here, I get that, but even if the Sox were to bring him back, he's no more valuable than a 4th OF-type guy, which the Sox already have covered.

I understand why KW can't be influenced by loyalty, he is trying to run a business. But I am not, I am a loyal Sox fan, and therefore I am offended by the way some of the players I have cheered for have been undervalued and discarded (Tadahito Iguchi, Juan Uribe, now Scott Podsednik). None of those three was replaced by anyone superior to improve the team, they were just dumped for business reasons. I understand. I am disgusted.

Sentimental value is what Frank Thomas gets around here. ("Sentimental" sounds so wimpy; "loyalty" is more macho). Podsednik was the Sox MVP in 2009. That's not ancient history like the dim, distant 2005. He had a problem. He solved the problem and became a better player than he was when he contributed so critically to the 2005 championship. So we "moved on" for an identical player at a much higher price (including a couple of prospects we may miss down the road). Sentiment is not the reason this was a lousy choice, and loyalty is only part of the reason why I am disgusted.

voodoochile
01-09-2010, 10:28 AM
I understand why KW can't be influenced by loyalty, he is trying to run a business. But I am not, I am a loyal Sox fan, and therefore I am offended by the way some of the players I have cheered for have been undervalued and discarded (Tadahito Iguchi, Juan Uribe, now Scott Podsednik). None of those three was replaced by anyone superior to improve the team, they were just dumped for business reasons. I understand. I am disgusted.

Sentimental value is what Frank Thomas gets around here. ("Sentimental" sounds so wimpy; "loyalty" is more macho). Podsednik was the Sox MVP in 2009. That's not ancient history like the dim, distant 2005. He had a problem. He solved the problem and became a better player than he was when he contributed so critically to the 2005 championship. So we "moved on" for an identical player at a much higher price (including a couple of prospects we may miss down the road). Sentiment is not the reason this was a lousy choice, and loyalty is only part of the reason why I am disgusted.

So you're loyal to the players but not the guy who found and acquired those players?

NLaloosh
01-09-2010, 10:49 AM
Hey, I really liked the way Pods played last year. I love it when a player gets a lot of clutch hits.

Before last year I didn't even want Pods back. But, he played damn well - offensively.

Does it really matter whether the Sox have Pierre or Pods? Probably not. They're about as even as two players can get. Pierre is likelier to stay healthy.

The Sox are going to win the division hands down anyway! Detroit has taken a big step back and Cleveland and KC are nothing to be concerned about.

Minnesota's run of luck has just ended now that they've given up the biggest home-field advantage in the history of sports.

The White Sox are the best team in the division and the only question now is how far they will go in the playoffs.

Kenny may not make any additions before March but I'm pretty sure that KW will make some moves between now and playoff time.

DumpJerry
01-09-2010, 11:11 AM
It cracks me up how people who are not even on the team payroll, much less part of the negotiation team, know what offers and demands are put on the table at contract time. Pure comedy gold.

cards press box
01-09-2010, 11:15 AM
I am a loyal Sox fan, and therefore I am offended by the way some of the players I have cheered for have been undervalued and discarded (Tadahito Iguchi, Juan Uribe, now Scott Podsednik). None of those three was replaced by anyone superior to improve the team, they were just dumped for business reasons.

I'm not so sure about your premise. Looking at each player, I think that the Sox had a good baseball reason -- as opposed to a business reason --for each move.

1. Tadahito Iguchi. Iguchi played great in 2005 and helped deliver a world championship in his rookie season. After the Sox traded him in 2007, the Sox replaced him at 2B in 2008 with Alexei Ramirez, a younger player with more upside. Toward the end of the 2007 season, the Sox played Danny Richar at 2B but did so to get some idea of how Richar could compete at the major league level. The Sox now have Gordon Beckham at 2B and Iguchi is back in Japan, so it's hard to see how the Sox did not upgrade at the position.

2. Scott Podsednik. Once again, Pods was great in 2005 and, moreover, had a great season in 2009 at age 33. Juan Pierre (who is two years younger) is roughly the same hitter as Podsednik but is a far better baserunner and defensive player. Pierre is the superior player.

3. Juan Uribe. Uribe was also great in 2005 but by 2008, he was a utility player who took over for an injured Joe Crede at 3B. The Sox replaced him at 3B with Josh Fields in 2009. I concede that Fields did not play as well as Uribe. But didn't the Sox need to find out what they had with Fields and whether Fields' 2007 season was a fluke. So, the Sox had a good baseball reason for replacing Uribe with Fields in 2009. And when Fields didn't work out, they replaced him with Beckham at 3B. The Sox have moved Beckham to 2B and now will have Mark Teahan (who is two years younger than Uribe and hits left handed) at 3B. Going from Uribe to Teahan at 3B is a perfectly legitimate baseball move.

voodoochile
01-09-2010, 12:43 PM
I'm not so sure about your premise. Looking at each player, I think that the Sox had a good baseball reason -- as opposed to a business reason --for each move.

1. Tadahito Iguchi. Iguchi played great in 2005 and helped deliver a world championship in his rookie season. After the Sox traded him in 2007, the Sox replaced him at 2B in 2008 with Alexei Ramirez, a younger player with more upside. Toward the end of the 2007 season, the Sox played Danny Richar at 2B but did so to get some idea of how Richar could compete at the major league level. The Sox now have Gordon Beckham at 2B and Iguchi is back in Japan, so it's hard to see how the Sox did not upgrade at the position.

2. Scott Podsednik. Once again, Pods was great in 2005 and, moreover, had a great season in 2009 at age 33. Juan Pierre (who is two years younger) is roughly the same hitter as Podsednik but is a far better baserunner and defensive player. Pierre is the superior player.

3. Juan Uribe. Uribe was also great in 2005 but by 2008, he was a utility player who took over for an injured Joe Crede at 3B. The Sox replaced him at 3B with Josh Fields in 2009. I concede that Fields did not play as well as Uribe. But didn't the Sox need to find out what they had with Fields and whether Fields' 2007 season was a fluke. So, the Sox had a good baseball reason for replacing Uribe with Fields in 2009. And when Fields didn't work out, they replaced him with Beckham at 3B. The Sox have moved Beckham to 2B and now will have Mark Teahan (who is two years younger than Uribe and hits left handed) at 3B. Going from Uribe to Teahan at 3B is a perfectly legitimate baseball move.


Never mind the facts, they were discarded, cast aside like so much chaff. Loyalty is all that matters when making baseball decisions...

Craig Grebeck
01-09-2010, 12:52 PM
People do realize that Pods had a "great" season for Pods, not a great season for, say, a professional baseball player?

DumpJerry
01-09-2010, 12:53 PM
I'm not so sure about your premise. Looking at each player, I think that the Sox had a good baseball reason -- as opposed to a business reason --for each move.

1. Tadahito Iguchi. Iguchi played great in 2005 and helped deliver a world championship in his rookie season. After the Sox traded him in 2007, the Sox replaced him at 2B in 2008 with Alexei Ramirez, a younger player with more upside. Toward the end of the 2007 season, the Sox played Danny Richar at 2B but did so to get some idea of how Richar could compete at the major league level. The Sox now have Gordon Beckham at 2B and Iguchi is back in Japan, so it's hard to see how the Sox did not upgrade at the position.

2. Scott Podsednik. Once again, Pods was great in 2005 and, moreover, had a great season in 2009 at age 33. Juan Pierre (who is two years younger) is roughly the same hitter as Podsednik but is a far better baserunner and defensive player. Pierre is the superior player.

3. Juan Uribe. Uribe was also great in 2005 but by 2008, he was a utility player who took over for an injured Joe Crede at 3B. The Sox replaced him at 3B with Josh Fields in 2009. I concede that Fields did not play as well as Uribe. But didn't the Sox need to find out what they had with Fields and whether Fields' 2007 season was a fluke. So, the Sox had a good baseball reason for replacing Uribe with Fields in 2009. And when Fields didn't work out, they replaced him with Beckham at 3B. The Sox have moved Beckham to 2B and now will have Mark Teahan (who is two years younger than Uribe and hits left handed) at 3B. Going from Uribe to Teahan at 3B is a perfectly legitimate baseball move.
I was surprised when Iguchi was traded for a nobody. However, given how quickly he faded after that makes me wonder if there was something going on that we were not made aware of. Maybe he wasn't happy here and the Sox wanted to help him out with a change of scenery.

DSpivack
01-09-2010, 12:58 PM
I was surprised when Iguchi was traded for a nobody. However, given how quickly he faded after that makes me wonder if there was something going on that we were not made aware of. Maybe he wasn't happy here and the Sox wanted to help him out with a change of scenery.

Is he back to playing in Japan?

oeo
01-09-2010, 01:13 PM
Brian Anderson could kicked the snot out of Podsednik and steal his wife. Fact. Anyone remember that lame hug he gave Barrett after punching AJ? Anderson had to come from first to actually stick up for his teammate.

Yeah and start throwing haymakers at a guy that wasn't doing anything but trying to be a mediator.

DumpJerry
01-09-2010, 01:26 PM
Is he back to playing in Japan?
I believe so. He is no longer with a MLB team. He had a wife and kid(s) back in Japan while he was playing here. That could make a guy homesick.

CLR01
01-09-2010, 01:45 PM
Yeah and start throwing haymakers at a guy that wasn't doing anything but trying to be a mediator.


Better than trying to catch a cheap feel.

Craig Grebeck
01-09-2010, 02:11 PM
I believe so. He is no longer with a MLB team. He had a wife and kid(s) back in Japan while he was playing here. That could make a guy homesick.
Yeah, Tadahito's in Japan, and just had a great season, if I remember correctly. Good to see.

SI1020
01-09-2010, 02:38 PM
Yeah, Tadahito's in Japan, and just had a great season, if I remember correctly. Good to see. Chiba Lotte Marines stats as of September 2. If anyone has more up to date stats I'd love to see them.

http://www.welovemarines.com/?page_id=799

Regarding Podsednik, I'm very sorry to see him go and wish him the best. I don't regard him as the defensive liability most everyone else seems him to be. No, I'm not saying he's a GG outfielder and yes he has a weak arm. Wait till you see Pierre heave one to the infield if you want to see a really weak arm. Hopefully things work out for both players and no I'm not bashing KW for letting Scottie go. Players move around all the time. It's a tough business but I sometimes wonder why all the harshness towards many of our ex players and posters who don't agree with our GM's every move. He is hardworking but somewhat streaky. The team hasn't been all that great for several seasons.

Boondock Saint
01-09-2010, 03:05 PM
Brian Anderson could kicked the snot out of Podsednik and steal his wife. Fact. Anyone remember that lame hug he gave Barrett after punching AJ? Anderson had to come from first to actually stick up for his teammate.

I'm surprised he actually made contact. If I was in a fight with BA, I'd just act like I was a slider in the dirt. Then he'd miss me nine times out of ten.

WhiteSoxOnly
01-09-2010, 04:13 PM
I'm surprised he actually made contact. If I was in a fight with BA, I'd just act like I was a slider in the dirt. Then he'd miss me nine times out of ten.

Zing !

Frater Perdurabo
01-09-2010, 05:19 PM
People do realize that Pods had a "great" season for Pods, not a great season for, say, a professional baseball player?

A .300 season is a pretty good season at the plate, no matter who it is.

Craig Grebeck
01-09-2010, 05:20 PM
A .300 season is a pretty good season at the plate, no matter who it is.
No, not really. Perhaps by archaic forms of evaluation, but not in this day and age.

voodoochile
01-09-2010, 05:38 PM
No, not really. Perhaps by archaic forms of evaluation, but not in this day and age.

Okay well he also posted an above average OPS, a well above average OBP and stole 30 bases.

If he had qualifying number of AB his .798 OPS as a CF would have placed him 6th in the majors for CF.

Are those stats modern enough for you?

CWSpalehoseCWS
01-09-2010, 06:06 PM
I'm surprised he actually made contact. If I was in a fight with BA, I'd just act like I was a slider in the dirt. Then he'd miss me nine times out of ten.

Not sticking up for Anderson, but he did nail John Mabry in the face if I remember correctly.

JB98
01-09-2010, 06:18 PM
Which makes the fact he outperformed the options here at home even more damning.

Actually, Rios and Anderson looked pretty much like a wash to me.

Neither could hit water if they fell out of a ****ing boat. The only advantage Anderson has on Rios is the fact that he's plays horse**** baseball for cheap, while Rios costs a lot of money.

At least there's a chance Rios will bounce back and play well this year. Anderson had four years and never did **** with any of his opportunities. Good riddance to him and Fields as well. I'm tired of waiting for these first-round busts to "figure it out."

It's Dankerific
01-09-2010, 06:30 PM
There is a 100% probability that Podsednik made a much larger multi-year demand to the Sox. Rather than get into a protracted negotiation with him, especially if Pod's agent made it sound like he wasn't moving down, the Sox went out and got Jones and Pierre as replacements.

After nobody bought into Pod's overinflated self-evaluation, the Royals were the only team willing to talk to him and he had to come down in price or be unemployed again.

Still disgusted?

By the time Pods lowered his demands, the Sox had moved on and replaced him. Nothing speculative about that.

It cracks me up how people who are not even on the team payroll, much less part of the negotiation team, know what offers and demands are put on the table at contract time. Pure comedy gold.

:gulp:

Hilarious.

Frater Perdurabo
01-09-2010, 06:54 PM
No, not really. Perhaps by archaic forms of evaluation, but not in this day and age.

I'm not closed minded to new metrics, because they can tell us things we used to overlook. But that doesn't negate the value of some old stats. Batting average remains a very useful stat.

russ99
01-09-2010, 07:48 PM
People do realize that Pods had a "great" season for Pods, not a great season for, say, a professional baseball player?

Interesting. I guess hitting .304 just isn't good enough to be a professional baseball player...

I'm in the camp where it's sad to see Pods go, but am happy he got a decent deal and the option for next year, which was a big reason of why he went to KC.

Pierre may end up playing better, so the Sox aren't going to take a step back for not bringing him back.

CLR01
01-09-2010, 10:33 PM
I'm surprised he actually made contact. If I was in a fight with BA, I'd just act like I was a slider in the dirt. Then he'd miss me nine times out of ten.

:lol:

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 12:35 AM
Interesting. I guess hitting .304 just isn't good enough to be a professional baseball player...

I'm in the camp where it's sad to see Pods go, but am happy he got a decent deal and the option for next year, which was a big reason of why he went to KC.

Pierre may end up playing better, so the Sox aren't going to take a step back for not bringing him back.
Strawman.

Boondock Saint
01-10-2010, 12:48 AM
Strawman.

So do you want to make your case, or are you just going to fold your arms and insist that they're wrong because you're right? His BA, OBP, OPS and stolen bases have all been cited in his defense. All you have is "Strawman".

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 12:50 AM
So do you want to make your case, or are you just going to fold your arms and insist that they're wrong because you're right? His BA, OBP, OPS and stolen bases have all been cited in his defense. All you have is "Strawman".
Russ insinuated that I thought not having a great season meant Pods was not capable of playing MLB. That is obviously a strawman argument.

Yes, he had a great year for him -- but that's not a great year leaguewide.

Boondock Saint
01-10-2010, 12:54 AM
Russ insinuated that I thought not having a great season meant Pods was not capable of playing MLB. That is obviously a strawman argument.

Yes, he had a great year for him -- but that's not a great year leaguewide.

You're the one that insinuated that Pods didn't have a good season for a professional baseball player. By what standard did he not have a good season for a professional baseball player?

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 01:07 AM
You're the one that insinuated that Pods didn't have a good season for a professional baseball player. By what standard did he not have a good season for a professional baseball player?
Oh for ****'s sake, cut the bull****. I said it wasn't a great season. It was great for him, mainly because he's sucked for so long. Great for MLB? No.

Boondock Saint
01-10-2010, 01:11 AM
Oh for ****'s sake, cut the bull****. I said it wasn't a great season. It was great for him, mainly because he's sucked for so long. Great for MLB? No.

Hey, you're the one that showed up just to crap all over the guy's season. I just asked you to back it up.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 01:16 AM
Hey, you're the one that showed up just to crap all over the guy's season. I just asked you to back it up.
I said it was a great season for Pods, just not the rest of the league. I fail to see how terrible defense and a sub .800 OPS equals a great season.

SI1020
01-10-2010, 09:02 AM
Batting average and RBIs don't matter. I don't know what does anymore. I've read a lot of Bill James and I think he does have a good idea of who was and is a good ball player but the revolution he started has devolved into a parallel world of deconstruction. Do these devotees even enjoy a baseball game anymore? As for Pods a putrid season would have been even more so without him. I'll miss him, wish him well and do my best to objectively evaluate him and everyone else in the league. It helps to watch baseball games.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 09:15 AM
Batting average and RBIs don't matter. I don't know what does anymore. I've read a lot of Bill James and I think he does have a good idea of who was and is a good ball player but the revolution he started has devolved into a parallel world of deconstruction. Do these devotees even enjoy a baseball game anymore? As for Pods a putrid season would have been even more so without him. I'll miss him, wish him well and do my best to objectively evaluate him and everyone else in the league. It helps to watch baseball games.
RBI do not matter, and there are so many better "simple" statistics than batting average that it has become essentially useless.

I watch over 100 games a year; I go to about five to ten; I watch minor league games, tape, etc. Get this: one can watch games, and make use of statistics!

spawn
01-10-2010, 09:25 AM
This thead is funny.

voodoochile
01-10-2010, 09:38 AM
RBI do not matter, and there are so many better "simple" statistics than batting average that it has become essentially useless.

I watch over 100 games a year; I go to about five to ten; I watch minor league games, tape, etc. Get this: one can watch games, and make use of statistics!

Wow and you actually believe it too...:?:

SI1020
01-10-2010, 09:39 AM
This thead is funny.
It is isn't it, but I'm not sure what the VORT (value over replacement thread) is.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 09:45 AM
Wow and you actually believe it too...:?:
Is this some revelation? Do you think front offices use RBI as a measure of offensive prowess or ability? Even if you buy into the notion of clutch statistics, why bother with RBI? It's a counting statistic, and a team one at that. Like I said, if you buy into clutch, just look at slash stats during certain situations.

Seriously, what will a player's RBI total tell you?

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 09:45 AM
It is isn't it, but I'm not sure what the VORT (value over replacement thread) is.
High-five! Up top! Show those nerds! Don't bother responding or having an adult conversation.

dickallen15
01-10-2010, 09:56 AM
Is this some revelation? Do you think front offices use RBI as a measure of offensive prowess or ability? Even if you buy into the notion of clutch statistics, why bother with RBI? It's a counting statistic, and a team one at that. Like I said, if you buy into clutch, just look at slash stats during certain situations.

Seriously, what will a player's RBI total tell you?


What I don't understand is guys who think BA and RBI and wins for pitchers don't mean squat, guys like James and the people at Baseball Prospectus, when they do their projections, they always include those stats.

The bottom line is RBIs matter. Guys who hit 30 homers, and I believe homers are used by just about everyone as a usful stat, don't drive in 48 runs in a season.

There's a reason that certain names always seem to be among the leaders in RBI from year to year. Some players do have a knack for driving in runs. Also, I don't know of any player you can say had a bad year when they drive in 120 runs. I can think of a few you can say had a bad year when they hit 30 homers.

As for clutch stats for a season, couldn't the sample size argument be used for those? A guy can hit a rocket right at someone, and he suddenly is a bad clutch hitter. Frank Thomas hit a bunch of first inning homers in his career. One reason is he probably had more ABs in the first inning than any other inning, but would that AB be considered clutch or highly pressured? It may have given the team the lead which could change how the rest of the game is played. I think there's a stat that the team that scores first usually wins. Just about every stat is flawed in someway. If you want to build a good team, you can't ignore the new stats, and you can't ignore the old way of doing things.

SI1020
01-10-2010, 09:58 AM
High-five! Up top! Show those nerds! Don't bother responding or having an adult conversation. OK. Which player in the top 50 or top 100 on this list was lousy? Including the roiders like Bonds, Palmeiro and Sosa.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/RBI_career.shtml

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 10:00 AM
OK. Which player in the top 50 or top 100 on this list was lousy? Including the roiders like Bonds, Palmeiro and Sosa.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/RBI_career.shtml
Is this really the defense of the statistic's utility? Yes, elite players have inflated RBI totals. The earth is also round and orbits the sun.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 10:16 AM
What I don't understand is guys who think BA and RBI and wins for pitchers don't mean squat, guys like James and the people at Baseball Prospectus, when they do their projections, they always include those stats.
That's a question for them. I don't really care, and if I ever look at PECOTA, I seldom glance at anything but slash stats. James' projections are garbage, as I've noted here time and time again.

The bottom line is RBIs matter. Guys who hit 30 homers, and I believe homers are used by just about everyone as a usful stat, don't drive in 48 runs in a season.
Okay. I don't really care about home runs. Again, the problem of counting statistics.

There's a reason that certain names always seem to be among the leaders in RBI from year to year. Some players do have a knack for driving in runs. Also, I don't know of any player you can say had a bad year when they drive in 120 runs. I can think of a few you can say had a bad year when they hit 30 homers.
What about a .728 OPS and 110 RBI? Is that a good season? (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=batisto01&year=2004&t=b)

No, it isn't. There are so many, so many better statistics to evaluate talent/performance.

As for clutch stats for a season, couldn't the sample size argument be used for those? A guy can hit a rocket right at someone, and he suddenly is a bad clutch hitter. Frank Thomas hit a bunch of first inning homers in his career. One reason is he probably had more ABs in the first inning than any other inning, but would that AB be considered clutch or highly pressured? It may have given the team the lead which could change how the rest of the game is played. I think there's a stat that the team that scores first usually wins. Just about every stat is flawed in someway. If you want to build a good team, you can't ignore the new stats, and you can't ignore the old way of doing things.
I don't care about clutch stats. At all. I was just citing them. I think sample size is always the problem -- hence why I don't care -- but I think that problem is probably more manageable than the problems inherent to RBI.

SI1020
01-10-2010, 11:02 AM
Is this really the defense of the statistic's utility? Yes, elite players have inflated RBI totals. The earth is also round and orbits the sun. Maybe it isn't and doesn't. Obviously my sense of reality is lacking.

VenturaFan23
01-10-2010, 11:09 AM
Brian must actually really go out there and kick puppies. he has the worst luck.

Thankfully, the puppies are safe because he'd swing and miss at them too.

thedudeabides
01-10-2010, 01:22 PM
Is this some revelation? Do you think front offices use RBI as a measure of offensive prowess or ability? Even if you buy into the notion of clutch statistics, why bother with RBI? It's a counting statistic, and a team one at that. Like I said, if you buy into clutch, just look at slash stats during certain situations.

Seriously, what will a player's RBI total tell you?

I know the Red Sox front office has come out and said they do not value RBI, but that doesn't mean all front offices completely discount them.

Yes, there are flaws in RBI as a measurable, but discounting RBI all together is a mistake. It means you are discounting situational hitting all together, and there are some teams who value that highly.

Just because they are a team statistic, doesn't mean they can be completely discounted, and that an individual doesn't have some control over them. It's why some hitters change their approach in different situations. These are plenty of things even teamate independent stats cannot account for. Yes, there are better better valuations than RBI, but I hate the argument that they are meaningless.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 01:31 PM
I know the Red Sox front office has come out and said they do not value RBI, but that doesn't mean all front offices completely discount them.

Yes, there are flaws in RBI as a measurable, but discounting RBI all together is a mistake. It means you are discounting situational hitting all together, and there are some teams who value that highly.

Just because they are a team statistic, doesn't mean they can be completely discounted, and that an individual doesn't have some control over them. It's why some hitters change their approach in different situations. These are plenty of things even teamate independent stats cannot account for. Yes, there are better better valuations than RBI, but I hate the argument that they are meaningless.
How is this thought prevailing? Discounting "situational hitting" altogether? First of all, give me a cogent definition of situational hitting, and then tell me how RBI are not only tied to this definition, but vital to its existence and analysis.

Taliesinrk
01-10-2010, 03:18 PM
Wow... This thread is off the deep end.

thedudeabides
01-10-2010, 03:48 PM
How is this thought prevailing? Discounting "situational hitting" altogether? First of all, give me a cogent definition of situational hitting, and then tell me how RBI are not only tied to this definition, but vital to its existence and analysis.

I was just replying to your blanket statement that no front offices value RBI, or use it as a measurement, when in fact front office personel talk about adding "run producers" all the time.

Look, I don't think it's a good statistical measurement, but I hate when people jump on others for bringing RBI, runs, wins, or ave. into a baseball conversation. These things are still part of baseball vernacular.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 03:50 PM
I was just replying to your blanket statement that no front offices value RBI, or use it as a measurement, when in fact front office personel talk about adding "run producers" all the time.

Look, I don't think it's a good statistical measurement, but I hate when people jump on others for bringing RBI, runs, wins, or ave. into a baseball conversation. These things are still part of baseball vernacular.
Of course personnel want to add "run producers" -- but that does not mean they value RBI. Producing a run and batting in a run are not the same thing, and the term run producer is loosely applied to, simply, good hitters.

They may be part of the vernacular, but that doesn't make them valuable.

thedudeabides
01-10-2010, 03:56 PM
Of course personnel want to add "run producers" -- but that does not mean they value RBI. Producing a run and batting in a run are not the same thing, and the term run producer is loosely applied to, simply, good hitters.

They may be part of the vernacular, but that doesn't make them valuable.

Alone, no they are not valuable. But, neither are any other single statistic. Traditionally, run producers have been associated with driving in runs. GM's and managers talk about it all the time.

I've said a couple of times they are not good for a statistical discussion, but I just get annoyed when people jump down others throats for even bringing these measures up in a thread.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 04:13 PM
Alone, no they are not valuable. But, neither are any other single statistic. Traditionally, run producers have been associated with driving in runs. GM's and managers talk about it all the time.

I've said a couple of times they are not good for a statistical discussion, but I just get annoyed when people jump down others throats for even bringing these measures up in a thread.
My stance is that when any analysis involves the use of RBI to prove a point regarding talent/merit/worth/value, said analysis isn't worth much, if anything.

Daver
01-10-2010, 04:17 PM
My stance is that when any analysis involves the use of RBI to prove a point regarding talent/merit/worth/value, said analysis isn't worth much, if anything.

Kind of like I don't value much of what you post based on statistics?

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 04:20 PM
Kind of like I don't value much of what you post based on statistics?
Well, if it isn't Daver. Glad you came in to waste everyone's time.

Frater Perdurabo
01-10-2010, 05:22 PM
Just because something can't be quantified doesn't mean its not valuable.

Daver
01-10-2010, 05:27 PM
Well, if it isn't Daver. Glad you came in to waste everyone's time.

I can't let you be the only one to do it.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 07:25 PM
Just because something can't be quantified doesn't mean its not valuable.
I think RBI are quite quantifiable, just not valuable as a metric.

SI1020
01-10-2010, 07:27 PM
I have no idea what he sees when he watches a baseball game. No idea how he evaluates individual players or teams. What's next? Playoffs based on Pythagorean wins? Talk about a worthless statistic.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 07:30 PM
I have no idea what he sees when he watches a baseball game. No idea how he evaluates individual players or teams. What's next? Playoffs based on Pythagorean wins? Talk about a worthless statistic.
1. I generally see players wearing mitts, and using said mitts to catch balls hit with bats or thrown with arms.
2. With regards to my preferred form of evaluation, the search function can be your friend. I've made many posts evaluating talent, and they're all freely available on this website.
3. Don't care much for Pythagorean Wins, though I understand the theory behind it.

CLR01
01-10-2010, 09:48 PM
Anderson can still beat the **** out of Podsednik.

jabrch
01-10-2010, 10:38 PM
I'm going to guess this thread is a complete piece of crap.

CLR01
01-10-2010, 10:53 PM
I'm going to guess this thread is a complete piece of crap.

It is about Pods...

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2010, 10:59 PM
I'm going to guess this thread is a complete piece of crap.
Reading's for suckers.