PDA

View Full Version : Fox sports' Dan Ferry say Podsednik is baseballs most overrated player


Sxy Mofo
08-30-2005, 03:45 PM
I'm sure this will be moved, but I wanted to start it off here just in case.

Pods is the most overrated player in the league according to this guy, but you've go to love his reasoning for it: Pods doesn't hit for power.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/4803552

This guy's hilarious.

DaleJRFan
08-30-2005, 03:48 PM
Looking at some of the names on that list, Pods should be honored.

It's kinda funny how the media, as a whole, has ZERO understanding of player roles. F'em! We'll see what these trolls think of the Sox when Uncle Bud hands over the world series trophy as it rains champaign this October...

Baby Fisk
08-30-2005, 03:50 PM
I'm sure this will be moved, but I wanted to start it off here just in case.

Pods is the most overrated player in the league according to this guy, but you've go to love his reasoning for it: Pods doesn't hit for power.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/4803552

This guy's hilarious.
:o: I'm dumbfounded.

But I for one am racing to my local book shoppe to pick up a copy of his new book! The avalanche of erudition it must contain!

IIRC, this tool came up with one of the most laughable among the already-laughable pre-season predictions lists. I'll have to look for it -- it was so bad I saved the damn thing so we could all have a laugh over it at the end of the year. It's close enough to that point. I'll post it if I find it. :cool:

EDIT: found a link to his rankings. (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3502460) He picked the Sox 22nd (4th place in the Central)! And he really seems to dislike Podsednik. Scott steal his girlfriend or something?

Flight #24
08-30-2005, 03:51 PM
His criteria are pretty easy when you look over the list. Hit for power? Check. Don't hit for power? Then you must suck.

Ichiro? Yeah, he does most things REALLY well.....but he doesn't hit for power....he sucks.

mr_genius
08-30-2005, 03:56 PM
I'm sure this will be moved, but I wanted to start it off here just in case.

Pods is the most overrated player in the league according to this guy, but you've go to love his reasoning for it: Pods doesn't hit for power.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/4803552

This guy's hilarious.

haha, he put Ichiro on the list... because he doesn't hit for power. haha, what an idiot.

FOXsportsloser:"yea, Gwynn was sooo overrated. When did he ever hit 40 dingers?"

mr_genius
08-30-2005, 04:00 PM
Ichiro? Yeah, he does most things REALLY well.....but he doesn't hit for power....he sucks.

i agree, Ichiro has no place on MY team

SoxFan78
08-30-2005, 04:03 PM
Yeah Ichiro broke the record for most hits in a season, but how many of those hits were homers??

Ol' No. 2
08-30-2005, 04:03 PM
:o: I'm dumbfounded.

But I for one am racing to my local book shoppe to pick up a copy of his new book! The avalanche of erudition it must contain!

IIRC, this tool came up with one of the most laughable among the already-laughable pre-season predictions lists. I'll have to look for it -- it was so bad I saved the damn thing so we could all have a laugh over it at the end of the year. It's close enough to that point. I'll post it if I find it. :cool:

EDIT: found a link to his rankings. (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3502460) He picked the Sox 22nd (4th place in the Central)! And he really seems to dislike Podsednik. Scott steal his girlfriend or something?Ugh. Dayn Perry. No need to say any more.

ATXBMX
08-30-2005, 04:10 PM
so...his preseason predictions say Blalock is a great hitter and Greinke is a future All-Star...but then he says they're overrated 6 months later? Make up your mind!!!

...At least he loves Big Frank. (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3713816)

Baby Fisk
08-30-2005, 04:14 PM
Watch for Dayn Perry's next column: "Wade Boggs in the Hall of Fame is a Travesty -- He Could Not Hit for Power!"

itsnotrequired
08-30-2005, 04:15 PM
What a wonk. How about comparing the salries of these players? Out of all the players on his list, only Greinke is making less than Pods. $700k vs. $330.5k. I would say Pods is an absolute steal. Same deal with Blalock. He may not have the greatest offensive numbers but is an asset on defense and for $850k, how can you go wrong?

Palehose13
08-30-2005, 04:17 PM
His criteria are pretty easy when you look over the list. Hit for power? Check. Don't hit for power? Then you must suck.

Ichiro? Yeah, he does most things REALLY well.....but he doesn't hit for power....he sucks.

Well Ichiro is a corner OFer. If he can't hit for power, then he is really below average for his position. I would much rather have Jermoy Burnitz over Ichiro. That Burnitz guy has some power!

mr_genius
08-30-2005, 04:20 PM
I would say Pods is an absolute steal.


"literally and figuratively"

:rolling:

ok, my bad

mr_genius
08-30-2005, 04:24 PM
Well Ichiro is a corner OFer. If he can't hit for power, then he is really below average for his position. I would much rather have Jermoy Burnitz over Ichiro. That Burnitz guy has some power!

and he doesn't speak english very good, interpreters can be a financial drag on any team.

Sxy Mofo
08-30-2005, 04:28 PM
"literally and figuratively"

:rolling:

ok, my bad

*throws tomato at Mr. Genius*


by the way, I'm glad you guys are like me and find this piece more hilarious than maddening.

MIgrenade
08-30-2005, 04:32 PM
*throws tomato at Mr. Genius*


by the way, I'm glad you guys are like me and find this piece more hilarious than maddening.

People would probably be more upset if Ichiro weren't there...that ruins all legitimacy and makes Perry look completely stupid.

buehrle4cy05
08-30-2005, 04:37 PM
This guy's ideal lineup probably has Manny Ramirez leading off.

SoxRule72
08-30-2005, 04:38 PM
Wow! I read some of the posts here before reading the article. I thought maybe "some are overreacting" or "maybe he makes great points"...I tried keeping an open mind before reading it. I gave the dude way too much credit!!!!

He slotted Pods as a leftfielder and totally ignored his leadoff hitter status. Somebody needs to tell that dude to "put things in their proper perspective."

I mean that's kinda like saying Jon Garland has 16 victories but he sucks because he has zero saves!

I couldn't even continue reading the article after what he wrote about Pods. What a joke!!!

jackbrohamer
08-30-2005, 04:43 PM
Who the hell "overrates" Podsednik? At the start of the season all the mediots were crapping all over him because his BA went from .314 to .244 between his first and second season. Then they dumped on him because he didn't "deserve" to be on the All Star team and blamed the Sox players.

1951Campbell
08-30-2005, 04:47 PM
I guess unless you're Rickey Henderson or Paul Molitor, you're just not gonna be good enough in the lead-off spot for this guy.

TomBradley72
08-30-2005, 05:05 PM
Wow....whatever he's smoking....I hope I can get some.

The whole argument is based on Pods being a corner OF....hello...with Aaron in CF (normally where the speed OF plays)....would he have a different opinion if we swapped Aaron to LF and Pods to CF?

What an idiot. The media still hasn't caught on to the fact that in the "post juice" era....the game is changing.

skobabe8
08-30-2005, 06:37 PM
can someone get an email addres for this guy please

SouthSide_HitMen
08-30-2005, 07:50 PM
can someone get an email addres for this guy please

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/4803552

Fox encourages your comments to Dayn Perry. Enjoy!

MarySwiss
08-30-2005, 07:54 PM
:o: I'm dumbfounded.

But I for one am racing to my local book shoppe to pick up a copy of his new book! The avalanche of erudition it must contain!

IIRC, this tool came up with one of the most laughable among the already-laughable pre-season predictions lists. I'll have to look for it -- it was so bad I saved the damn thing so we could all have a laugh over it at the end of the year. It's close enough to that point. I'll post it if I find it. :cool:

EDIT: found a link to his rankings. (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3502460) He picked the Sox 22nd (4th place in the Central)! And he really seems to dislike Podsednik. Scott steal his girlfriend or something?

LOL! This guy wrote a book? Musta been a comic book!

MarySwiss
08-30-2005, 07:57 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/4803552

Fox encourages your comments to Dayn Perry. Enjoy!

Please Sox Army, don't even think about commenting. Not worth it, and it will only encourage him.

Nellie_Fox
08-31-2005, 12:05 AM
Somebody should sit down and calculate an "adjusted" slugging percentage for Scott, counting any time he steals second as a double, and when he steals third as a triple.

I'm as much "old school" as anybody about the corners being offensive positions, and up the middle defensive positions, but offensive doesn't have to mean home runs.

jlh0023
08-31-2005, 01:17 AM
I bet this guy is a huge sammy sosa fan.

mr_genius
08-31-2005, 01:48 AM
I bet this guy is a huge sammy sosa fan.

who isn't?

SOXintheBURGH
08-31-2005, 03:12 AM
who isn't?

No matter how bad they are, I still just love my Cubbies!

chitownhawkfan
08-31-2005, 04:32 AM
I think this guys mother might have tipped back a few while he was in the womb, in fact she must of with a name like Dayn and that mongoloid forehead of his.

Kuzman
08-31-2005, 09:49 AM
This goes back to the "Tom Brady isn't effective because he doesnt throw for 500 yards a game.

THIS ISN'T FANTASY BASEBALL.


I love fantasy sports to death, but they are destroying the way people look at games entirely too much. This guy is a complete troll.

voodoochile
08-31-2005, 10:13 AM
This goes back to the "Tom Brady isn't effective because he doesnt throw for 500 yards a game.

THIS ISN'T FANTASY BASEBALL.


I love fantasy sports to death, but they are destroying the way people look at games entirely too much. This guy is a complete tool.

Fixed your post...

skobabe8
08-31-2005, 11:56 AM
Please Sox Army, don't even think about commenting. Not worth it, and it will only encourage him.

Sorry, Mary. Usually I dont. But the thought of this guy submitting this article to Foxsports.com and going around thinking that he's so brilliant and smart makes my skin crawl. I know he probably wont even read my email, but it made me feel better.

billyvsox
09-01-2005, 12:19 AM
What a joke. All you have to do is watch the Sox play a handful of times to realize the importance of Pod's.

I do however totally agree with C.C. (Compton Crypt) Sabathia and his unprofessional sideways hat. He hasn't down anything to prove he is an ace.

By the way, isn't Kerry Wood curiously missing?

Mr. White Sox
09-01-2005, 01:30 AM
I love his Kevin Millar pick, but...


5. Victor Zambrano, SP, Mets

The Mets cut bait on Scott Kazmir, perhaps the best young lefty in the game, to get Zambrano, mostly because then new pitching Rick Peterson thought he could fix him.

*Cough Zach Duke *Cough...but yes, that was a bad, bad trade for the Mets.




8. Ichiro Suzuki, RF, Mariners

Ichiro is a cultural luminary, an important figure in baseball history and a thoroughly likeable and engaging athlete. He also hits for average, runs the bases well and plays an exceptional right field.

However, Ichiro lacks secondary hitting skills. That means he doesn't draw walks and doesn't hit for power.



:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

He has 15 HR, 62 RBI (.445SLG), and 27 SB this year, and is one of the best leadoff hitters in the game...how does he not help a team? To say you wouldn't want him on your team is ludicrous.

Johnny Damon has 9 HR and 65 RBI (.459SLG) this year, along with 14 SB, and he is the most amazing hitter ever to grace baseball.

This guy is an utter http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:x7Sjid_aQpoJ:http://www.kastar.com/product_pages/images/Kastar_Crescent-Wrench.jpg (A wrench is a type of tool)


9. Sean Casey, 1B, Reds

Casey's had a handful of good seasons in his career, but he's horribly inconsistent and isn't worth the $7.8 million he's making this season. He's slugging only .440...

Sean Casey... .320/.386/.442/.824 ... ehhhh, that's not bad. He's also a career .306 hitter.


If Dayn Perry had a team of all Joe Credes, he'd be in Dayn Perry heaven.

Foulke You
09-01-2005, 11:50 AM
I love his Kevin Millar pick, but...


*Cough Zach Duke *Cough...but yes, that was a bad, bad trade for the Mets.



:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

He has 15 HR, 62 RBI (.445SLG), and 27 SB this year, and is one of the best leadoff hitters in the game...how does he not help a team? To say you wouldn't want him on your team is ludicrous.


If Dayn Perry had a team of all Joe Credes, he'd be in Dayn Perry heaven.

The funny thing is, this writer basically says that Ichiro does everything well: plays his position great, hits for a high average, runs and steals well but he doesn't hit a ton of HRs and is a contact hitter so that is why he is overrated. Wha?:?: He has 15HRs playing half his games in pitcher friendly Safeco which isn't too shabby, so even his "no power" comment doesn't hold water. Wow, I'm just speechless that Ichiro made an overrated list.

He similarly blasted Podsednik for being overrated because of no power. Now, Scotty is not the player that Ichiro is but he is very valuable and certainly not overrated. Here was my favorite comment: "Sure, he has his merits good defense, solid on-base skills, speed on the bases" I just love how the tone of his article is that speed and defense aren't as important as power. I guess Kenny Williams should have just signed Matt Stairs instead of Scotty and batted him leadoff.

fquaye149
09-01-2005, 01:53 PM
Somebody should sit down and calculate an "adjusted" slugging percentage for Scott, counting any time he steals second as a double, and when he steals third as a triple.

I'm as much "old school" as anybody about the corners being offensive positions, and up the middle defensive positions, but offensive doesn't have to mean home runs.

The problem with that is that you should then take a base away from them when they're caught stealing. Or better yet, a hit.

(Although this would be debatable because when you get thrown out trying to stretch a double into a triple you still get credit for a double...IDK)

fquaye149
09-01-2005, 01:56 PM
I think this guys mother might have tipped back a few while he was in the womb, in fact she must of with a name like Dayn and that mongoloid forehead of his.

with multi-layered insults like this, I can see why you think Jeff Foxworthy's comedy is too lowbrow :?:

Nellie_Fox
09-01-2005, 02:46 PM
I think this guys mother might have tipped back a few while he was in the womb, in fact she must of with a name like Dayn and that mongoloid forehead of his.I always love when someone makes significant grammatical errors in a post while insulting someone else's intelligence.

sullythered
09-01-2005, 02:56 PM
Ichiro Suzuki is overrated. Maybe if you rate him as a superhero, he is.

soxrme
09-01-2005, 03:33 PM
Does the name Kerry Wood ring a bell with this guy?:?:

goodsy72
09-04-2005, 01:12 PM
The newest load of crap from Dan Ferry. Let the Ferry , oops I mean Perry bashing begin !!!


http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/4803552?GT1=6902

RKMeibalane
09-04-2005, 01:13 PM
Is this the same Danny Ferry who played in the NBA? Good grief!

TheOldRoman
09-04-2005, 01:19 PM
Hawk addressed this. To paraphrase, It's not Perry's fault he is a ****ing moron, it is the company's fault for hiring a ****ing moron.

jabrch
09-04-2005, 01:19 PM
Dayn Perry is a notorious propeller head. I think he picked us to win 81 games and finish 3rd place in the Central before the season. He's addicted to the abuse of statistics, and it shows in his work.


With Pods, we are winning about 2/3 of our games.

Without him, we are about .500.

Now I know that doesn't mathematically proove anything, but he and his Toronto Blue Jays, LA Dodgers, As etc. can have such marvelous LFs like Cattalanotto, Kielty, and Jason Repko. He can have his leadoff hitters like Jason Werth, Reed Johnson and Jason Kendall. I'll put Pods out in LF and have him lead off over any of his team's options.

Perry and his ilk place no value on the things Pods does, or the type of ball we play. Don't hold your breath for compliments.

ChiSox14305635
09-04-2005, 01:24 PM
A left fielder with no home runs this late in the season isn't doing his job, no matter how many bases he steals



And yet all those years that the Vince Colemans & Willie McGees were stealing bags and not jacking the ball out of the park. It makes so much sense now. Bunch of non-producing schmos. :rolleyes:

MarySwiss
09-04-2005, 01:26 PM
Well, just look at some of the other names on that list. That pretty much says it all as far as this guy's credibility is concerned, don't you think?

SoxinAZ
09-04-2005, 01:47 PM
Dayn Perry is a MORON!! Enough said.:gulp:

OEO Magglio
09-04-2005, 01:50 PM
You want to know how overrated pods is: We couldn't win a darn game when he went on the dl, we couldn't score any runs when he went on the dl, the 5 games he's played in since he came off the dl we've scored: 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 runs.

EMel9281
09-04-2005, 01:52 PM
I think I caught Levine and JD talking about this on the radio this morning. Basically, Levine said how can put a number on what a certain position is supposed to produce? IMO, he's right. How can you say that he's not a good player because he isn't home runs and driving in runs like ManRam or CLee? That's BS. I understand that your corner infielders and DH are "supposed" to be your power hitters and such. But, this is just pure, unadulterated crap. The Sox are winning and that's all that matters.

JermaineDye05
09-04-2005, 01:54 PM
damn what an idiot, pods is the #1 overrated guy, he even put C.C. Sabathia on the list, and Ichiro, by no means is Ichiro overrated

goodsy72
09-04-2005, 01:57 PM
You want to know how overrated pods is: We couldn't win a darn game when he went on the dl, we couldn't score any runs when he went on the dl, the 5 games he's played in since he came off the dl we've scored: 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 runs.

That's what I'm talkin' about. If he had a clue about this team , the way we play , then he'd know Scotty Pods is our spark plug . Without him in the one hole this team just isn't the same team.

Soxzilla
09-04-2005, 02:04 PM
What I don't understand is...NOBODY outside of White Sox fans like Scott Podsednik, especially since he bested Jeter in the fan polling (Only because the White Sox Army went out full force and destroyed the city of NY:cool:).

So how can anyone that NOBODY likes, be overrated?

MarySwiss
09-04-2005, 02:05 PM
damn what an idiot, pods is the #1 overrated guy, he even put C.C. Sabathia on the list, and Ichiro, by no means is Ichiro overrated

Exactly! And where is it written that all outfielders HAVE to be power hitters? I don't give a **** if Pods ever hits a home run; we've got other guys to do that. But we don't have other guys who steal every base in sight and drive pitchers and catchers batty!

Why do these mediots have so much trouble grasping the simplest concepts? :?:

samram
09-04-2005, 02:33 PM
That's what I'm talkin' about. If he had a clue about this team , the way we play , then he'd know Scotty Pods is our spark plug . Without him in the one hole this team just isn't the same team.

Well, that's the thing about propellerheads. Watching games isn't really important to them. The difference in how a pitcher works with a guy like Pods on base isn't important. All that matters is the box score.

TommyJohn
09-04-2005, 02:34 PM
Hey, it's a different game today! Everyone n the lineup MUST hit 40 home
runs or more to be any good! Hell, I'll take an 83-79 team that hits 260
home runs over the team they have now! DUH!!!

Taliesinrk
09-04-2005, 03:17 PM
I won't even comment on the blurb regarding Podsednik... What I will comment on is the fact that Ichiro is on that list. I don't care if he's having an off-year.. (.299/15/63 + 28 SB/95 R).. The guy set the MAjor freaking league record for hits last year... I know it's 2005 now, but thats rediculous to say hes one of the top 10 most overrated players.. I guess in the boxscore Ferry hasn't been able to see his arm from right..
REdiculous

jabrch
09-04-2005, 03:45 PM
Remember Dayn Perry?

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3502460

22.
White Sox (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590)
http://msn.foxsports.com/fe/img/MLB/TeamLogo/Medium/4.gif (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590) Bulletin: Scott Podsednik isn't the answer. Neither is Ozzie Guillen's passion for small ball. In 2000, team was one of the youngest ever to make the playoffs. Also had a strong farm system in tow, making them uniquely poised for a run of dominance in the Central. That didn't happen. If this year's model flops, GM Kenny Williams needs to go.
Team page (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590) | Statistics (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/teamStats?categoryId=71590) | Fantasy news (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/teamFantasyNews?categoryId=71590)



Yes Sox fans, that's right - Dayn Perry's preseason pick - had the Sox ranked 22nd overall. Pods wasn't the answer. Ozzie isn't. KW needs to go...

And Perry is still holding tight to that story. Ya know who needs to go? Dayn Perry.

* Cubs - 9th ranked team. Twinkies 5th. Injuns 11th. Tiggers 19th. Yeah...Dayn Perry - he's so smart.

jabrch
09-04-2005, 03:52 PM
This goes back to the "Tom Brady isn't effective because he doesnt throw for 500 yards a game.

THIS ISN'T FANTASY BASEBALL.


I love fantasy sports to death, but they are destroying the way people look at games entirely too much. This guy is a complete troll.

I love the momentum that the propellerheads got the past few years. KW can go out and cheaply, under the radar, acquire good baseball players who play good baseball because Lewis/Beane/etc. have convinced the world that there is a better way to put a winning team out there than by playing smart, fundamentally sound baseball.

BRILLIANT!!!

Jerome
09-04-2005, 04:06 PM
First of all, the overrated/underrated talk is all pretty stupid to me. How do you measure "overrated-ness"? Is Pods/Ichiro a bad player? No, according to this Dayn guy though, they are not as good as people say they are. :?:
As much as i love the book moneyball, it seems that it is making baseball pundits more obnoxious.

Whatever.

If you think Podsednik is a bad player, ok, then say so. If you think that he gets too much credit for the 2005 white sox being so good, like some do, just say so. But don't just paint with the broad brush of overrated.

LuzinskiFan
09-04-2005, 04:34 PM
First of all what kind of a name is Dayn? Secondly, everytime Pods gets on he distracts the other team's pitcher, causing Gooch and the other guys after him to get easier pitches to hit and makes the other team's pitcher throw over to first so often that they wear out their arm. So this Dayn should realize its not all about the stats but the intangibles too.

Dub25
09-04-2005, 04:41 PM
Sean Casey horribly inconsistent? He only has a .304 carrer average. I'll take that kind of inconsistency.

Mr. White Sox
09-04-2005, 04:48 PM
Does the name Kerry Wood ring a bell with this guy?:?:

:worship: :worship: http://www.onlinesports.com/images/phf-aagh006.gif

SABRSox
09-04-2005, 04:52 PM
Does the name Kerry Wood ring a bell with this guy?:?:

I believe Dayn Perry is a Cubs fan, which is why Podsednik would be "overrated" and Carrie Woods wouldn't be anywhere near that list.

Banix12
09-04-2005, 07:32 PM
Who's Dayn Perry and why should I really care what he thinks?

The only sportswriters I like are the ones who can legitimately give you information that nobody else really has, like a Gammons (ok so 80% of his information is about boston). These guys who pretty much rank players and teams and try to predict outcomes are just useless filler.

Overrated and Underrated lists along with "best of" lists are the worst of them, completely subjective lists built on personal opinion to create arguements and fill space.

Not worth anybody's time.

Mr. White Sox
09-04-2005, 08:29 PM
This guy has to be writing articles for people who don't know baseball (maybe he thinks he's in Europe)...

Underrated List... (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/4806636)
Man, what a .SLG% whore. How can Roy Oswalt be on an Underrated List? Is Julio Lugo a great defensive SS? Since when is Morgan Ensberg underrated? Jhonny Peralta is getting a ton of pub, at least from smart people.

"Podsednik needs to do more for ChiSox" Mailbag (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/4830068)
Nice job repeating your whole overrated article and whining about .SLG% again. What's more, he's slugging only .297 (!) away from hitter-friendly U.S. Cellular. That's just awful power production for a left fielder, and nothing he does can compensate for that fact.
What if he, like, stole 55 bases? And what if he, like, I don't know, forces a pitcher to throw more fastballs? Or maybe even put pressure on the defense?
:dtroll:

MRKARNO
09-04-2005, 10:55 PM
I happen to agree that Podsednik's individual contribution is overrated by many around these parts, but I do think there's some merit to the rest of the offense raising it's game when he's around. There is no question that other hitters see better pitches because of him. I think the steals are fun and exciting, but I think it's silly to really think that singling and stealing second is any better than just doubling in the first place, especially when you factor in the risk of getting caught.

And as far as getting contribution from positions is concerned, it's ok to get lower production at a particular position, as long as you're getting it from another one. Look at the Rangers. They have an amazing offensive infield but a mediocre outfield, so they can get by. But our offense hasnt been nearly as good, which leaves it open to criticism.

Ol' No. 2
09-04-2005, 10:58 PM
I happen to agree that Podsednik's individual contribution is overrated by many around these parts, but I do think there's some merit to the rest of the offense raising it's game when he's around. There is no question that other hitters see better pitches because of him. I think the steals are fun and exciting, but I think it's silly to really think that singling and stealing second is any better than just doubling in the first place, especially when you factor in the risk of getting caught.

And as far as getting contribution from positions is concerned, it's ok to get lower production at a particular position, as long as you're getting it from another one. Look at the Rangers. They have an amazing offensive infield but a mediocre outfield, so they can get by. But our offense hasnt been nearly as good, which leaves it open to criticism.Except you don't see too many two-base walks.:smile:

noquitter
09-04-2005, 11:06 PM
I happen to agree that Podsednik's individual contribution is overrated by many around these parts, but I do think there's some merit to the rest of the offense raising it's game when he's around. There is no question that other hitters see better pitches because of him. I think the steals are fun and exciting, but I think it's silly to really think that singling and stealing second is any better than just doubling in the first place, especially when you factor in the risk of getting caught.It must be really hard to be a fan of BP and the Sox. A part of you must be rooting for the Sox to fail so you can say "I told you so".

MRKARNO
09-04-2005, 11:11 PM
Except you don't see too many two-base walks.:smile:

Then again, since June started, you dont see that many walks from Podsednik! It was amazing to see how many pitchers would be willing to walk him early on, but he's swinging at a few more bad pitches than he was early on. His pre break .294 BA and .369 OBP with 44 steals was very good, but when he was not hitting well, it was pretty ugly.

Ol' No. 2
09-04-2005, 11:19 PM
Then again, since June started, you dont see that many walks from Podsednik! It was amazing to see how many pitchers would be willing to walk him early on, but he's swinging at a few more bad pitches than he was early on. His pre break .294 BA and .369 OBP with 44 steals was very good, but when he was not hitting well, it was pretty ugly.Everybody's ugly when they're not hitting well. He still had a .360 OBP for July, but August was brutal. How much of that was due to the groin pull can only be guessed. It's still not 100%. It will take a while until we know how much has returned.

MRKARNO
09-04-2005, 11:22 PM
It must be really hard to be a fan of BP and the Sox. A part of you must be rooting for the Sox to fail so you can say "I told you so".

BP does not have fans. BP is a website which writes articles about baseball.

I do read the articles there and I happen to agree with some of the underlying principles under which they operate. I do not agree with everything they write, particularly some of the underlying pessimism about the White Sox. A lot of the writers at BP do not value defense, something which I think has propelled the Sox to their current level. I think that's one of the bigger failings of sabermetric stats right now. I also dissagree with the DIPS theory because it doesnt take into account the popup, which is actually pretty big in the grand scheme of things as a popup is practically equivilent to a strikeout and it is a skill to induce a popup.

But it's ludicrous to assume that because someone believes in a a lot of the major tenants of sabermetric theory that those beliefs are incompatible with following and rooting for the White Sox. If the Sox have found a cheaper or better way to win consistantly, then I'm all for it, even it it forces the sabermetric community to rethink about how it views the game. But honestly, look at the A's. They're a team built on pitching and defense too. I'm not so sure that the "stat" side and the "scout" side are really all that far apart.

noquitter
09-04-2005, 11:26 PM
But it's ludicrous to assume that because someone believes in a a lot of the major tenants of sabermetric theory that those beliefs are incompatible with following and rooting for the White Sox. If the Sox have found a cheaper or better way to win consistantly, then I'm all for it, even it it forces the sabermetric community to rethink about how it views the game.It's good to see you like both. But I don't think it's ludicrous to connect BP fans with being anti-Sox. Look at that jeremyb1 guy. :smile:

MRKARNO
09-04-2005, 11:34 PM
It's good to see you like both. But I don't think it's ludicrous to connect BP fans with being anti-Sox. Look at that jeremyb1 guy. :smile:

I'm sure there are a fair amount of other Sox fan BP readers at this site who won't go out and say it because they're afraid of the backlash. How do all of these subscribtion only clips get on the site in the first place? Jeremyb1 basically ruined things for everyone else and it's really unfortunate because I think we could have had some good debates around here. I think a lot of his comments poisoned the tolerance that this community had towards the sabermetric community. But then again, there is a tendency here to decry anyone who has a single bad word to say about the White Sox, even if they have been complimentary in the past (see Neyer, Rob).

Ol' No. 2
09-04-2005, 11:35 PM
BP does not have fans. BP is a website which writes articles about baseball.

I do read the articles there and I happen to agree with some of the underlying principles under which they operate. I do not agree with everything they write, particularly some of the underlying pessimism about the White Sox. A lot of the writers at BP do not value defense, something which I think has propelled the Sox to their current level. I think that's one of the bigger failings of sabermetric stats right now. I also dissagree with the DIPS theory because it doesnt take into account the popup, which is actually pretty big in the grand scheme of things as a popup is practically equivilent to a strikeout and it is a skill to induce a popup.

But it's ludicrous to assume that because someone believes in a a lot of the major tenants of sabermetric theory that those beliefs are incompatible with following and rooting for the White Sox. If the Sox have found a cheaper or better way to win consistantly, then I'm all for it, even it it forces the sabermetric community to rethink about how it views the game. But honestly, look at the A's. They're a team built on pitching and defense too. I'm not so sure that the "stat" side and the "scout" side are really all that far apart.They don't need to be, but in most circles, they're still miles apart. I recall reading last winter about a panel discussion between two scouts (forgot their names) and two stat guys (McCracken was one). I'll bet you read the same story. So there you had a discussion about the strengths and weakness of each approach and the scout says "I never read SABR type stats" and McCracken says "I never look at the players". ***?? Is it so hard to understand that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive but complementary? But as long as these guys have their heels dug in and view the other as a threat, it will continue.

MarySwiss
09-04-2005, 11:39 PM
I happen to agree that Podsednik's individual contribution is overrated by many around these parts, but I do think there's some merit to the rest of the offense raising it's game when he's around. There is no question that other hitters see better pitches because of him. I think the steals are fun and exciting, but I think it's silly to really think that singling and stealing second is any better than just doubling in the first place, especially when you factor in the risk of getting caught.

I disagree, and here's why. If you hit a double, you hit a double. Nice and clean. Everybody knows where they stand, including the pitcher. But singling and being a threat to steal second gets into the pitcher's head bigtime. Having a guy like Pods dancing around on first and driving a pitcher crazy--whether he steals or not--IS an individual contribution, and in my opinion a very valuable one. And when he does steal, so much the better.

MRKARNO
09-04-2005, 11:44 PM
They don't need to be, but in most circles, they're still miles apart. I recall reading last winter about a panel discussion between two scouts (forgot their names) and two stat guys (McCracken was one). I'll bet you read the same story. So there you had a discussion about the strengths and weakness of each approach and the scout says "I never read SABR type stats" and McCracken says "I never look at the players". ***?? Is it so hard to understand that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive but complementary? But as long as these guys have their heels dug in and view the other as a threat, it will continue.

Exactly, though I think it's fair to say that there are probably a lot more scout types that dont look at the stats than stat guys who dont watch the games. The scout-oriented fans or scouts themselves can get away with it and still consider themselves fans, but most of the people into baseball stats have been watching the games forever and do watch a lot of baseball.

But I agree with your post entirely. This fight is just like any fight where neither side can understand where the other is coming from. But the front offices who best can manage the statistical work with the scouting work will come out ahead consistantly.

MRKARNO
09-04-2005, 11:48 PM
Having a guy like Pods dancing around on first and driving a pitcher crazy--whether he steals or not--IS an individual contribution, and in my opinion a very valuable one. And when he does steal, so much the better.

That's more of a definitional question though. It's hard to say that you can give all the credit to Podsednik because not every hitter is going to be able to take advantage of that. But on the other hand, it's a non-issue if he's not there. That's kind of in the grey area and I think that bothers some in the statistical analysis community. Another thing is that no one can, at present, define how much it affects the pitcher, how many steals in one's resume it takes to merit that attention, etc.

Optipessimism
09-05-2005, 03:39 AM
I sent him this response:

Here's a quick rundown of your list:

Podsednik and Ichiro are two of the top legitimate leadoff hitters in the game. Leadoff hitters get on base, not hit home runs, and there are only a few true, productive leadoff hitters in the game period. Brian Roberts, Rafael Furcal, Juan Pierre, and Johnny Damon pretty much finish out the list of the top leadoffmen out there, and only Roberts and to some extent Damon are going to hit you more than a few home runs.

Blalock and Beltran are having down years but both play excellent defense and, in Hank's case, is not overrated or overpaid. Beltran may be overpaid, but that doesn't make him overrated. He is a 5-tool player which MLB usually doesn't see and has the skills to perform much better than he has this year at the plate. Any major league scout will tell you that if any one player on your list is NOT overrated, it is Beltran. You can't make your claim based on what the Mets paid for him, because the Mets have vastly overpayed for much less talent in the past.

Kevin Millar, Sean Casey, and Victor Zambrano in my opinion were never rated highly enough to become overrated in the first place. Millar is a stopgap/roleplayer, Casey is overpaid as the Reds hoped he would develop some power but he will get nothing near what he is paid now on the market when he becomes a free agent. Zambrano was always a wild headcase that had the talent but only a 50/50 chance of growing into his potential. Just because the Mets again made a stupid move by trading Kazmir for him doesn't mean that all of the sudden Zambrano is a more valubale player than he is.

Ryan Klesko is overrated? Overrated by whom? To even call him rated would be a gross overstatement, so I don't know how you can say he's overrated. Klesko isn't on any team's radar.

Sabathia has a ton of promise and in my opinion could benefit from a change of scenery. Something isn't working with him and I think a new pitching coach and a new direction could get him going, because he has the stuff of a staff ace. It's not that he is overrated, it's that he is underperforming. There is a difference.

Geinke gets me. He's just a kid. He needs to develop. Look at Jon Garland or Johan Santana, two guys in the running for the Cy Young this year. Both are young but it took them a while to get going. I wouldn't write off Zack, especially under the conditions he is playing in. He plays for a garbage team with a garbage record with no defense up the middle except for DeJesus. Don't you think that skews his ERA a bit? Don't you think that being on a winning team going in a positive direction would help him? If I'm a young pitcher, I sure am not excited at the prospect of Angel Berroa blowing my double play balls left and right. Leave Zack alone, he has more of a chance to be something special than any other pitcher you've named.

jabrch
09-05-2005, 12:36 PM
BP does not have fans. BP is a website which writes articles about baseball.


I would totally disagree with you. You don't fall under this class, but there is a large population of sycophants who eat up all of the nonsense coming from a Sheehan or a Dayn Perry or a Michael Lewis and repeat it as gospel. There are "fans" of this ridiculous new-age discipline that values conformity to certain mathematical functions over those traditional skills that have proven to win games over the course of time.

There are BPnicks out there. There are Beanies and Propellerheads who think that Podsednik is overrated, and that he is one of the worst LFs in the game, strictly because he has 0 HRs and a slg that is too low for a LF.

jabrch
09-05-2005, 12:41 PM
Exactly, though I think it's fair to say that there are probably a lot more scout types that dont look at the stats than stat guys who dont watch the games.

I would highly doubt there are any professional scout types that don't look at stats. They may not look at the subset of stats that the McCrackens of the world do, but none "don't look at stats". That would be nuts. That said, the McCrackens of the world profess that you will be fooled by your eyes if you watch games and use that to make judgements. Now of course that doesn't (can't possibly) mean that they don't watch the games. Rather that they base their judgement 90% on their spreadsheet and only 10% on evaluation of skills.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2005, 01:07 PM
I would highly doubt there are any professional scout types that don't look at stats. They may not look at the subset of stats that the McCrackens of the world do, but none "don't look at stats". That would be nuts. That said, the McCrackens of the world profess that you will be fooled by your eyes if you watch games and use that to make judgements. Now of course that doesn't (can't possibly) mean that they don't watch the games. Rather that they base their judgement 90% on their spreadsheet and only 10% on evaluation of skills.

After years of steroids and human growth hormone, baseball has neglected (hell, even forgotten about) the need for an effective lead-off man. The BP propellerheads are the very worst of these people, every ballplayer's worth measured strictly by the alphabet soup statistics they invented. To hear them tell it, every plate appearance is an independent result, as statistically significant as the results of 500 draws from a glass bowl filled with numbered tickets (each marked single, double, strikeout, etc.).

These people, of course, are full of ****.

Scott Podsednik isn't the best leftfielder in the game, but he is definitely one of the very best lead-off men precisely because of the effect he has on the game whenever he gets on base -- which of course is his primary job as lead-off man.

All the whining and bitching from the BP crowd over Podsednik proves just how little value they place on a lead-off man's skills. What REALLY makes them look silly is that Podsednik wouldn't make the list of even the Top Ten lead-off men of the 70's or 80's, two decades filled to the brim with fast guys able to change the game simply by getting on base.

Thus these people not only show their ignorance of Podsednik's skills compared to other lead-off men, they show their ignorance of lead-off men generally throughout the history of the game.

BP and all its followers have their brains addled by steroids and human growth hormone. They're getting schooled this season as MLB takes away the drugs that BP relied on for all their idiotic projections. Power numbers are down and speed is regaining the purpose it always served in the game.

Time for the BP propellerheads to think up some new alphabet soup statistics to prove how smart they are. As usual, they're merely trying to catch up with the reality the rest of us already recognize. Good luck getting any of these dopes to admit their mistakes, starting with this clown shoes bozo Dan Ferry.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-05-2005, 01:22 PM
Scott Podsednik isn't the best leftfielder in the game, but he is definitely one of the very best lead-off men precisely because of the effect he has on the game whenever he gets on base -- which of course is his primary job as lead-off man.


Scott better get his head out of his behind and stop getting picked off. Some of his caught stealing in July / August were due to the groin but he has had several caught stealing day dreaming about Lisa Dergan on 1B. If the groin isn't strong enough to steal bases than take a normal lead and run the bases like everyone else. Ernie Lombardi standing on first is better than Podsednik heading to the dugout after getting picked off.

Mr. White Sox
09-05-2005, 02:05 PM
But I agree with your post entirely. This fight is just like any fight where neither side can understand where the other is coming from. But the front offices who best can manage the statistical work with the scouting work will come out ahead consistantly.

Quotes from Tony LaRussa:
"I've been sat down and told they can give me a better way to do everything. They really are convinced that they can sit there and crunch out a formula that negates my power of observation."
--Cardinals manager Tony La Russa, on sabermetric researchers (New York Times)

"It's been a little irritating, because there's a certain arrogance with that whole group."
--La Russa

"The 'Moneyball' kind of stuff has its place, but so does the human. Really, the combination is the answer."
--La Russa


Heck, this page (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4403) has quotes on the Sox as well (BP never fails to do some good ol' subtle Sox bashing!)

SABRSox
09-05-2005, 02:50 PM
But I agree with your post entirely. This fight is just like any fight where neither side can understand where the other is coming from. But the front offices who best can manage the statistical work with the scouting work will come out ahead consistantly.

That's the trick, combining the stats with the scouting reports. There is a way to do this, I'm sure of it, but you've got two camps so entrenched on either end that it's been hard to find the middleground. (And at this point, enough feelings have been hurt that it's become a major hurdle.) The organizations that best bridge the gap between the scouts and statheads will end up coming out on top.

If I were running an organization, I'd have my scouts start learning some of the tools of sabermetrics, and I'd be teaching my statheads how to scout, if for anything to open up a little perspective on both ends.

I read BP, but I often get annoyed with the "know-it-all" attitude. It's the exact same as scouts who instantly discredit sabermetrics without even considering it. Sabermetrics still has a long way to go, especially in regards to defense and baserunning. The sooner publications like BP understand that, the better for the sabermetric community.

jabrch
09-05-2005, 05:10 PM
If I were running an organization, I'd have my scouts start learning some of the tools of sabermetrics, and I'd be teaching my statheads how to scout, if for anything to open up a little perspective on both ends.


I wouldn't - you'd turn good propellerheads into bad scouts and you'd turn good scouts into old men trying to figure out how to use the damn calculator.

I'd have scouts. I'd have a spreadsheethead. Each would give their respective input, and I'd go with the scouting unless there was some sick reason not to.

jabrch
09-05-2005, 05:15 PM
To hear them tell it, every plate appearance is an independent result, as statistically significant as the results of 500 draws from a glass bowl filled with numbered tickets (each marked single, double, strikeout, etc.).

These people, of course, are full of ****.


:hawk
"I luv it when you analyze"

Daver
09-05-2005, 05:16 PM
I wouldn't - you'd turn good propellerheads into bad scouts and you'd turn good scouts into old men trying to figure out how to use the damn calculator.

I'd have scouts. I'd have a spreadsheethead. Each would give their respective input, and I'd go with the scouting unless there was some sick reason not to.

Most MLB teams already use this approach.

jabrch
09-05-2005, 05:26 PM
Most MLB teams already use this approach.

Agreed - it has served MLB well for a long time. Nobody has yet proven a correlation between these other approaches and building winning teams.

Of the teams run with a significantly tilted approach towards quantitative analysis, Boston (with its 150mm+ payroll) is the only one that would make the playoffs today. Oakland is the only other one that is over .500. Toronto is 2 games behind .500. and the Dodgers (with a huge payroll) are 14 games under .500.

Billy Beane has done a wonderful job keeping teams in contention on a small budget despite his approach. Amazing health, and freeflowing steroids have been to his team's benefit up until this season.

Chips
09-05-2005, 06:00 PM
Scott better get his head out of his behind and stop getting picked off. Some of his caught stealing in July / August were due to the groin but he has had several caught stealing day dreaming about Lisa Dergan on 1B. If the groin isn't strong enough to steal bases than take a normal lead and run the bases like everyone else. Ernie Lombardi standing on first is better than Podsednik heading to the dugout after getting picked off.

Sometimes I think Scott is dreaming about her left field, only sometimes.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-05-2005, 06:09 PM
Chat: Dayn Perry

Chat Home (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/)

Welcome to Baseball Prospectus' Tuesday September 06, 2005 1:00 PM ET chat session with Dayn Perry.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=138

WSI's favorite author will have a chat tomorrow at our favorite website - BP Prospectus.

Questions can be submitted beforehand - I am sure people can think of some good ones.

ilsox7
09-05-2005, 06:11 PM
Chat: Dayn Perry

Chat Home (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/)

Welcome to Baseball Prospectus' Tuesday September 06, 2005 1:00 PM ET chat session with Dayn Perry.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=138

WSI's favorite author will have a chat tomorrow at our favorite website - BP Prospectus.

Questions can be submitted beforehand - I am sure people can think of some good ones.

I'll start: Dayn, who are you and why should I care what you have to say?

Mr. White Sox
09-05-2005, 06:43 PM
Chat: Dayn Perry

Chat Home (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/)

Welcome to Baseball Prospectus' Tuesday September 06, 2005 1:00 PM ET chat session with Dayn Perry.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=138

WSI's favorite author will have a chat tomorrow at our favorite website - BP Prospectus.

Questions can be submitted beforehand - I am sure people can think of some good ones.

Make sure your questions are intelligent to some degree...if not, they'll use it and abuse it; they'll love any shot they can take at poo-pooing the White Sox, KW, Pods, Iguchi, CWS Trades, CWS food, etc. etc.

MRKARNO
09-05-2005, 06:52 PM
Make sure your questions are intelligent to some degree...if not, they'll use it and abuse it; they'll love any shot they can take at poo-pooing the White Sox, KW, Pods, Iguchi, CWS Trades, CWS food, etc. etc.

No, the reason your question should be somewhat intelligent and not antagonistic is because pointless antagonistic questions like "Why do you hate the White Sox" are basically the equivilent of trolling and it's pretty obnoxious when you go to other sites and see WSI trolls. Note to fellow WSIers: don't troll. Ever.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-05-2005, 07:01 PM
No, the reason your question should be somewhat intelligent and not antagonistic is because pointless antagonistic questions like "Why do you hate the White Sox" are basically the equivilent of trolling and it's pretty obnoxious when you go to other sites and see WSI trolls. Note to fellow WSIers: don't troll. Ever.

I should have added the caveat to ask reasonable questions - I think this article lays out plenty of possible questions regarding his rational behind his selection of Scott Podsednik, Ichiro and others who are unfairly criticized, in my humble opinion.

Mr. White Sox
09-05-2005, 07:01 PM
No, the reason your question should be somewhat intelligent and not antagonistic is because pointless antagonistic questions like "Why do you hate the White Sox" are basically the equivilent of trolling and it's pretty obnoxious when you go to other sites and see WSI trolls. Note to fellow WSIers: don't troll. Ever.

What I mean is, don't ask questions like:
"How can you say Podsednik is overrated? He gets on base like a leadoff guy should!"

"Why do you hate the White Sox so much? Will you acknowledge that they're a good model?"

These types of questions can easily be circumvented/repelled in such a way as to: 1. Not answer the question 2. Poo-poo the White Sox...

I of course do not advocate trolling.

Daver
09-05-2005, 07:10 PM
Dayn,

What is the name of the stat that guages a starting pitchers change in delivery when a basestealing threat is on first, and how is it figured?

What is the stat for the BA difference of the number two hitter based on question above, and how is that figured?

Mr. White Sox
09-05-2005, 07:35 PM
Dayn,

What is the name of the stat that guages a starting pitchers change in delivery when a basestealing threat is on first, and how is it figured?

What is the stat for the BA difference of the number two hitter based on question above, and how is that figured?

:Rocker::thumbsup::gulp:I'd love for that to get on there, but I doubt it will.

noquitter
09-05-2005, 07:45 PM
No, the reason your question should be somewhat intelligent and not antagonistic is because pointless antagonistic questions like "Why do you hate the White Sox" are basically the equivilent of trolling and it's pretty obnoxious when you go to other sites and see WSI trolls. Note to fellow WSIers: don't troll. Ever.But it's perfectly OK for BP to constantly troll the Sox? Are you sure you aren't in the jeremyb1 camp? :?:

ilsox7
09-05-2005, 07:51 PM
But it's perfectly OK for BP to constantly troll the Sox? Are you sure you aren't in the jeremyb1 camp? :?:

Just b/c someone may "troll" the Sox does not make it appropriate for Sox fans to do the same to them.

Daver
09-05-2005, 07:58 PM
Dayn,

Can you give me the stats that correlate the power numbers of a lead off man to the winning percentage of the team he plays for?

What is that stat for pitchers throwing pick off attempts as it relates to their pitch count, and how is it measured?

What is the stat for the increase in balks when a known base stealer is on first, and how does it correlate to his ERA?

noquitter
09-05-2005, 08:01 PM
Just b/c someone may "troll" the Sox does not make it appropriate for Sox fans to do the same to them.I didn't say it was. Our stathead friend said Sox fans shoudn't troll BP, but he seems to feel it's OK for BP to troll the Sox. And that has a jeremyb1 smell to it.

Jerome
09-05-2005, 08:14 PM
Agreed - it has served MLB well for a long time. Nobody has yet proven a correlation between these other approaches and building winning teams.

Of the teams run with a significantly tilted approach towards quantitative analysis, Boston (with its 150mm+ payroll) is the only one that would make the playoffs today. Oakland is the only other one that is over .500. Toronto is 2 games behind .500. and the Dodgers (with a huge payroll) are 14 games under .500.

Billy Beane has done a wonderful job keeping teams in contention on a small budget despite his approach. Amazing health, and freeflowing steroids have been to his team's benefit up until this season.


So if Beane didn't have his basic approach of valuing what the market undervalues, if he did things the way every other team did, the A's would be better? The A's are winning DESPITE Billy Beane? GMAB.

This year the A's have had some very bad injury problems (Harden, Crosby, bullpen guys) and thanks to their excellent drafting/minor leagues/trades, have been able to win while still staying WAY below the payroll of other teams. I want to agree with you on the steroids, but that is pure speculation that can be said about any other team in baseball as well before this year.

Daver
09-05-2005, 08:21 PM
So if Beane didn't have his basic approach of valuing what the market undervalues, if he did things the way every other team did, the A's would be better? The A's are winning DESPITE Billy Beane? GMAB.

This year the A's have had some very bad injury problems (Harden, Crosby, bullpen guys) and thanks to their excellent drafting/minor leagues/trades, have been able to win while still staying WAY below the payroll of other teams. I want to agree with you on the steroids, but that is pure speculation that can be said about any other team in baseball as well before this year.

Guys that are known to have taken steroids, for a fact, Jose Canseco, Jason Giambi, both played for the A's. Mark Mcguire is suspected, and refuses to speak about the subject, whaddya know, he played for the A's too. The circumstantial evidence is piling up.

noquitter
09-05-2005, 08:35 PM
Guys that are known to have taken steroids, for a fact, Jose Canseco, Jason Giambi, both played for the A's. Mark Mcguire is suspected, and refuses to speak about the subject, whaddya know, he played for the A's too. The circumstantial evidence is piling up.Oakland is where 'roids started in baseball. It's silly for anybody to assume the A's are clean, very silly.

YourWhatHurts
09-05-2005, 09:09 PM
His criteria are pretty easy when you look over the list. Hit for power? Check. Don't hit for power? Then you must suck.

Ichiro? Yeah, he does most things REALLY well.....but he doesn't hit for power....he sucks.

i hate people who are obsessed with power numbers

i hate people who believe the guy who hit the most homers should automatically be the league MVP...how do these idiots get jobs?

MRKARNO
09-05-2005, 10:32 PM
But it's perfectly OK for BP to constantly troll the Sox? Are you sure you aren't in the jeremyb1 camp? :?:

Joe Sheehan, James Click and Nate Silver have WSI accounts? :?:

Oh wait they don't. Let's get this straight, Baseball Prospectus is a group of writers who write for a website. There are no message boards at BP. Not every stat oriented baseball fan even likes BP, and that's one of the reasons for it. Sometimes they write articles that many agree with. Sometimes they write articles that many dissagree with. But there is no way to express it at that site because it's the equivalent of an online newspaper. There are many other sites in the statistical community besides Baseball Prospectus. Most of those do have comments or input from outsiders. Baseball Think Factory (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org) is a good example.

As far as my being in the "jeremyb1 camp," that's the wrong way to look at the picture. It's more of a spectrum. I know some around here like to compartmentalize the whole picture because it's much easier to look at things in a "us vs. them" manner (propellorheads vs real WSIers). But that's simply not the case.

noquitter
09-05-2005, 10:38 PM
Joe Sheehan, James Click and Nate Silver have WSI accounts? :?:Neither does Moronotti and you would be hard pressed to name a bigger troll. Your guys do constantly troll the Sox. The fact they dress it up as "articles" rather than posts on a board is irrelevant.

MRKARNO
09-05-2005, 10:50 PM
Your guys do constantly troll the Sox. The fact they dress it up as "articles" rather than posts on a board is irrelevant.

What part of "us vs them" not being the case didn't you understand?

Anyways, people are free to have their opinion on any topic in this country. If BP's articles bother people around here so much so that they are considered trolling, why are they always posted here? I'll tell you why: Because a large portion of WSIers like to bitch and moan when someone else writes an article that isn't 100% complimentary of the White Sox. Well I got news for everyone here: Someone who writes an article which isn't 100% complimentary of the team does not necessarily hate the White Sox. The question "Why does BP hate the White Sox?" is a silly one because they don't.

noquitter
09-05-2005, 10:53 PM
The question "Why does BP hate the White Sox?" is a silly one because they don't.Considering there are dozens of articles indicating they do and there is NO evidence they don't, your assertion seems to be the silly one. :smile:

Ol' No. 2
09-05-2005, 11:11 PM
Considering there are dozens of articles indicating they do and there is NO evidence they don't, your assertion seems to be the silly one. :smile:I wouldn't say that the BP people hate the White Sox per se. They just hate the fact that the Sox' success has exposed the flaws in their whole methodology. If people stop believing they have answers, they'll stop subscribing.

MRKARNO
09-05-2005, 11:11 PM
Considering there are dozens of articles indicating they do and there is NO evidence they don't, your assertion seems to be the silly one. :smile:

Considering that you dont have a Baseball Prospectus subscription and everything you know about the website comes from other people, I dont know how you can accurately judge the website. Do you really think the small clips of articles that are posted here for people to bitch and moan about are a full and accurate representation of the body of work at BP?

Daver
09-05-2005, 11:15 PM
Considering that you dont have a Baseball Prospectus subscription and everything you know about the website comes from other people, I dont know how you can accurately judge the website. Do you really think the small clips of articles that are posted here for people to bitch and moan about are a full and accurate representation of the body of work at BP?

I do have a subscription, and I think they are full of ****.

BP serves one purpose, they sell their book,and all their articles are based on selling that book on a yearly basis.

MRKARNO
09-05-2005, 11:18 PM
I wouldn't say that the BP people hate the White Sox per se. They just hate the fact that the Sox' success has exposed the flaws in their whole methodology. If people stop believing they have answers, they'll stop subscribing.

I think this is pretty accurate. A lot of the work that BP had done has overlooked some important aspects of the game. They've basically ignored the situational aspects of the game (which isn't to say that all "statheads" have, but most work in that area is in its infancy. Win probability added graphs are a start) and a lot of the defensive aspects in favor of plain old hitting and pitching. A good hitter is more valuable than a good defensive player. But that isn't to say that a good defensive player has no value and that's what a lot of BP's work has pointed to. I dont think they really understand that a big reason why the Yankees pitching staff is so bad and the White Sox pitching staff is so good is defense. Defensive efficiency and park adjusted defensive efficiency might be some of the most telling stats about a team's run prevention, but they don't look to that enough.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-05-2005, 11:29 PM
Considering that you dont have a Baseball Prospectus subscription and everything you know about the website comes from other people, I dont know how you can accurately judge the website. Do you really think the small clips of articles that are posted here for people to bitch and moan about are a full and accurate representation of the body of work at BP?

I bought the 2 year subscription in 2004 for roto purposes (their player projections are middle of the road - found a few guys cheap I wouldn't have but they are worthless on the pitching side - I have found better on free sites). I won't renew.

They really don't like the White Sox (half are admitted cub fans, Dayn Perry is a Cardinal fan) and want them to lose. In a chat they said they went to the Boston / White Sox game to cheer against the Sox and were taunting Podsednik after he was caught stealing (which they said people didn't appreciate - duh). Sheehan picked the Sox to win 72 games and a few others thought the Sox would finish 4th or 5th. I had the Sox pegged at 86 wins because I underestimated their pitching staff. I, however, do not call myself a journalist or charge for my predictions.

Will Carroll has a good column regarding injuries. They make detailed observations regarding the transactions and you get some good news about prospects but this info can be found elsewhere. I don't appreciate their political comments either. They have few (if any) kind words to say about Williams or Guillen or any player outside of Buehrle. I am a White Sox fan first and foremost. If I read the 1986 team or 1989 team stunk then yeah that is pretty much dead on. But to read 2005 was going to stink, then as the team proved otherwise to say the start was a fluke and they will regress was a continuation of their faulty analysis.

Maybe others disagree but my time reviewing BP Prospectus is over - If I want to read people ripping on the Sox and dark clouds I can go to the roadhouse - where "crap" goes to die (as PHG so eloquently refers to that board).

noquitter
09-05-2005, 11:38 PM
I bought the 2 year subscription in 2004 for roto purposes (their player projections are middle of the road - found a few guys cheap I wouldn't have but they are worthless on the pitching side - I have found better on free sites). I won't renew.

They really don't like the White Sox (half are admitted cub fans, Dayn Perry is a Cardinal fan) and want them to lose. In a chat they said they went to the Boston / White Sox game to cheer against the Sox and were taunting Podsednik after he was caught stealing (which they said people didn't appreciate - duh). Sheehan picked the Sox to win 72 games and a few others thought the Sox would finish 4th or 5th....Really not looking good for MRKARNO. :o:

jabrch
09-05-2005, 11:47 PM
So if Beane didn't have his basic approach of valuing what the market undervalues, if he did things the way every other team did, the A's would be better? The A's are winning DESPITE Billy Beane? GMAB.

Had he taken the talent that he acquired before firing his scouting department and replacing them with a computer, and not gone out to try and put guys like Matt Stairs or Jeremy Giambi at leadoff, and not tried to make Scott Hatteberg an everyday 1B, etc. who knows where that team would have been.

This year the A's have had some very bad injury problems (Harden, Crosby, bullpen guys) and thanks to their excellent drafting/minor leagues/trades, have been able to win while still staying WAY below the payroll of other teams.

Oakland's injuries have been fairly normal. Our best hitter missed nearly all of this season. You don't hear Sox fans bitching about it. Yanks have had injuries all year. Atlanta had 3/5 of its rotation on the shelf at once. Injuries are a bad excuse.

All of this, however, is opinion. It can be debated and never proven. Jerome, you have your opinion, I have mine, and I doubt we will ever agree. HOWEVER - THE NEXT POINT IS NOT OPINION. IT IS FACT.

I want to agree with you on the steroids, but that is pure speculation that can be said about any other team in baseball as well before this year.

That's just foolishness. McGwire, Canseco, Jaha, Stairs, Giambi (2), Grieve, etc. are all known steroid users. Do I have pictures? No. However, I'd be stunned if 2 of those guys are totally clean. You can argue maybe about Jeremy Giambi. Past that - there's not much an arguement.

I'm not saying there weren't steroid users on other teams also. But the Oakland locker room was universally known to be the epicenter of steroids in baseball for a long time. If you don't want to believe that about the As, that's your choice.

jabrch
09-05-2005, 11:53 PM
(propellorheads vs real WSIers). But that's simply not the case.

Just for the record, I don't think that's the comparison people are making. Not PropHeads vs real WSIers. Rather PropHeads vs Traditionalists. And in that case, it usually is a us vs them thing. Two camps - both believe they are right.

At the end of the day, I don't care if the BPnicks come up with some brand new fandangled "statistic" that shows how KW beat the system just by dumb luck, and stumbling into some formulae that he didn't even know about. If we do manage to win it all, they will - they surely will. I will laugh at them for sure.

Any system that proved mathematically that guys like Matt Stairs or Jeremy Giambi at the leadoff spot will make for a more productive offense than a guy like Podsednik or Damon is complete hooey to me.

Daver
09-05-2005, 11:59 PM
I really wish I could take the time off work to join Dayn's chat.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-06-2005, 12:08 AM
I really wish I could take the time off work to join Dayn's chat.

You can submit questions before hand. They usually answer about 20 total.

noquitter
09-06-2005, 12:09 AM
Any system that proved mathematically that guys like Matt Stairs or Jeremy Giambi at the leadoff spot will make for a more productive offense than a guy like Podsednik or Damon is complete hooey to me.Last week my group at work had to rapidly analyze hundreds of thousands of lines of data. I created a couple of fancy if statements for my people that would let them blast through maxed out Excel spreadsheets in moments. I finished on the first sheet and the new columns popped up and I was staring at the sheet working from left to right. My employees, who were looking over my shoulder, asked me what I was doing. I replied, "Oh, these are very cool if statements. But, I'm just picking a couple random lines and making sure the answers make sense. Just because there is an answer it doesn't mean I didn't make a mistake in the logic." :D:

voodoochile
09-06-2005, 12:19 AM
Last week my group at work had to rapidly analyze hundreds of thousands of lines of data. I created a couple of fancy if statements for my people that would let them blast through maxed out Excel spreadsheets in moments. I finished on the first sheet and the new columns popped up and I was staring at the sheet working from left to right. My employees, who were looking over my shoulder, asked me what I was doing. I replied, "Oh, these are very cool if statements. But, I'm just picking a couple random lines and making sure the answers make sense. Just because there is an answer it doesn't mean I didn't make a mistake in the logic." :D:


GIGO... when in doubt and the theory is going down in flames, manipulate the data...:wink:

MarySwiss
09-06-2005, 12:26 AM
I really wish I could take the time off work to join Dayn's chat.

Daver, do you really believe for one second that they would LET you join the chat? The questions you have raised throughout this thread are rational, and they necessitate a rebuttal that is grounded in fact. Call it a hunch, but something tells me that this guy never stays up late worrying about whether or not he has his facts straight. Or, for that matter, is rational.

mccoydp
09-06-2005, 10:27 AM
Dayn Perry is a bumbling idiot; if anyone is overrated, it's him.

I'll bet he bleeds Cubbie blue!

Mr. White Sox
09-06-2005, 01:07 PM
Daver, would you be OK with me using your questions in chat? Or have you submitted them already yourself?

Sox Blue 69-70
09-06-2005, 01:39 PM
That's just foolishness. McGwire, Canseco, Jaha, Stairs, Giambi (2), Grieve, etc. are all known steroid users. Do I have pictures? No. However, I'd be stunned if 2 of those guys are totally clean. You can argue maybe about Jeremy Giambi. Past that - there's not much an arguement.


Agree with you 100% there. However, your original statement was:

Billy Beane has done a wonderful job keeping teams in contention on a small budget despite his approach. Amazing health, and freeflowing steroids have been to his team's benefit up until this season. (my emphasis)

The guys you referred to have not played for Oakland in years.

Mr. White Sox
09-06-2005, 01:47 PM
MarySwiss, good job with getting a question on there. Unfortunately, he beat around the bush once again and referred you to a subscription only article...ehhh, good try. :D:

EDIT: He also doesn't understand that Pods' nickname is "PODS", not "POD".

MarySwiss
09-06-2005, 01:53 PM
MarySwiss, good job with getting a question on there. Unfortunately, he beat around the bush once again and referred you to a subscription only article...ehhh, good try. :D:

Mr. White Sox: What question? Who? Where? Obviously, I'm :?: Which is not all that unusual!

Mr. White Sox
09-06-2005, 02:02 PM
Hah, well, I bet someone on WSI used your name on the Dayn Perry chat. Here it is:

MarySwiss (Chandler, Arizona): How can you possibly justify the inclusion of Scott Podsednik on your "most overrated players" list? Take a look at the team's stats with and without him. And where is it written that all outfielders have to be power hitters? Or does this have something to do with the fact that you picked the Sox to finish 22nd overall this season; 4th place in the AL Central? I smell something. Sour grapes, maybe?
Dayn Perry: See today's "Can of Corn (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4407)" for further elucidation. The short answer is this: useful corner outfielders do not slug less than .300 on the road. Pod has his merits, but there's no getting around the fact that his power numbers are patently inadequate.

Mr. White Sox
09-06-2005, 02:03 PM
In addition, I got a question on there (yay!), so here it is; I was cordial and got a someone satisfying response.

Ben (Madison, Wisconsin): Dayn, is there a movement within the sabermetric community to develope statistics regarding the effect a basestealing threat has on a pitcher? Something to the extent of an increased opportunity for errors by the catcher and pitcher, an increased propensity for a pitcher to throw fastballs to the current hitter and the effect that has, etc. It seems that hitting is very well documented statistically, but statistic measurements of baserunning and defense have a long way to go. Dayn Perry: Mitchel Lichtman's done some interesting work on this, and it's work I reference in my forthcoming book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471721743/qid=1126029224/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-1484552-3937455?v=glance&s=books). (Contrived, self-serving plug? Yes!) The short answer is that things seem to balance out on the base-stealing front, however much it strains pitcher and defense is countervailed by how much it distracts the batter and or forces him to take strikes or protect the runner by flailing at something out of the zone.

As for your skepticism toward measures of defense, I fully share them.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-06-2005, 02:04 PM
Mr. White Sox: What question? Who? Where? Obviously, I'm :?: Which is not all that unusual!

Here was Mary's Question and Dayn's (who spells the name Dan Dayn? What is up with that) response.

MarySwiss (Chandler, Arizona): How can you possibly justify the inclusion of Scott Podsednik on your "most overrated players" list? Take a look at the team's stats with and without him. And where is it written that all outfielders have to be power hitters? Or does this have something to do with the fact that you picked the Sox to finish 22nd overall this season; 4th place in the AL Central? I smell something. Sour grapes, maybe?

Dayn Perry: See today's "Can of Corn (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4407)" for further elucidation. The short answer is this: useful corner outfielders do not slug less than .300 on the road. Pod has his merits, but there's no getting around the fact that his power numbers are patently inadequate.

Here is his "Can of Corn" snippit on Podsednik

<LI>You've probably noticed that Scott Podsednik (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/podsesc01.shtml) is getting a fair amount of attention for his notional contributions to the White Sox's success this season. What's most notable, however, is his appalling lack of power.

Away from hitter-philic U.S. Cellular, Podsednik is slugging a mere .297 (!), and he's yet to hit a home run this season. In fact, this year's White Sox model is poised to become the first team since the 1945 Tigers (with Jimmy Outlaw) to make the post-season despite having a regular corner outfielder who didn't hit a single home run.

Of course, that Podsednik is deliriously overrated by the mainstream media doesn't mean he's thoroughly without his uses. He runs the bases well, and he's a key part of what's a strong defensive unit. The Sox this season rank second in all of baseball in Defensive Efficiency (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=206), and the fact that Chicago pitchers rank near the top of the league in fewest doubles and triples allowed suggests that the outfield defense has been especially capable. In the process of writing my forthcoming book Winners: How Good Baseball Teams Become Great Ones (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471721743/qid=1125971025/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-1484552-3937455?v=glance&s=books) (plug...shameless, first of many), I discovered that a notable preponderance of winning teams in the modern era employ what I call the "dual center fielder" arrangement. That is, they have their regular center fielder and, at one of the two corner outfield spots, they have a player who, in a recent or shortly approaching season, saw regular action in center. I don't doubt that White Sox pitchers have greatly benefited from having Podsednik and Aaron Rowand (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/rowanaa01.shtml) playing behind them. As for Podsednik's offense, however, he's been lousy no matter how much Hawk and DJ fawn over him from the booth.

MarySwiss
09-06-2005, 03:23 PM
Hah, well, I bet someone on WSI used your name on the Dayn Perry chat. Here it is:

Wow! It's this damn laptop; it does things all on its own sometimes. I seriously thought I lost that message.

Well, good! Thanks, Mr. White Sox.

MarySwiss
09-06-2005, 03:28 PM
Here was Mary's Question and Dayn's (who spells the name Dan Dayn? What is up with that) response.

MarySwiss (Chandler, Arizona): How can you possibly justify the inclusion of Scott Podsednik on your "most overrated players" list? Take a look at the team's stats with and without him. And where is it written that all outfielders have to be power hitters? Or does this have something to do with the fact that you picked the Sox to finish 22nd overall this season; 4th place in the AL Central? I smell something. Sour grapes, maybe?

Dayn Perry: See today's "Can of Corn (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4407)" for further elucidation. The short answer is this: useful corner outfielders do not slug less than .300 on the road. Pod has his merits, but there's no getting around the fact that his power numbers are patently inadequate.

Here is his "Can of Corn" snippit on Podsednik

<LI>You've probably noticed that Scott Podsednik (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/podsesc01.shtml) is getting a fair amount of attention for his notional contributions to the White Sox's success this season. What's most notable, however, is his appalling lack of power.

Away from hitter-philic U.S. Cellular, Podsednik is slugging a mere .297 (!), and he's yet to hit a home run this season. In fact, this year's White Sox model is poised to become the first team since the 1945 Tigers (with Jimmy Outlaw) to make the post-season despite having a regular corner outfielder who didn't hit a single home run.

Of course, that Podsednik is deliriously overrated by the mainstream media doesn't mean he's thoroughly without his uses. He runs the bases well, and he's a key part of what's a strong defensive unit. The Sox this season rank second in all of baseball in Defensive Efficiency (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=206), and the fact that Chicago pitchers rank near the top of the league in fewest doubles and triples allowed suggests that the outfield defense has been especially capable. In the process of writing my forthcoming book Winners: How Good Baseball Teams Become Great Ones (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471721743/qid=1125971025/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-1484552-3937455?v=glance&s=books) (plug...shameless, first of many), I discovered that a notable preponderance of winning teams in the modern era employ what I call the "dual center fielder" arrangement. That is, they have their regular center fielder and, at one of the two corner outfield spots, they have a player who, in a recent or shortly approaching season, saw regular action in center. I don't doubt that White Sox pitchers have greatly benefited from having Podsednik and Aaron Rowand (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/rowanaa01.shtml) playing behind them. As for Podsednik's offense, however, he's been lousy no matter how much Hawk and DJ fawn over him from the booth.

Anybody else notice that this bozo didn't actually address any of my points?

Ol' No. 2
09-06-2005, 03:29 PM
Anybody else notice that this bozo didn't actually address any of my points?Too busy plugging his book.

MarySwiss
09-06-2005, 03:36 PM
Too busy plugging his book.

Hard to believe this guy is writing a book. And with the word with the word "winners" in the title yet. Ironic, huh?

Ol' No. 2
09-06-2005, 03:47 PM
Hard to believe this guy is writing a book. And with the word with the word "winners" in the title yet. Ironic, huh?This clown has already gotten WAAYYY more attention than he deserves. He just spews this nonsense because he knows people will call BS. I guess it beats being ignored. Who would have ever paid any attention to Dayn Perry otherwise?

MarySwiss
09-06-2005, 03:54 PM
This clown has already gotten WAAYYY more attention than he deserves. He just spews this nonsense because he knows people will call BS. I guess it beats being ignored. Who would have ever paid any attention to Dayn Perry otherwise?

So true!

maurice
09-06-2005, 04:37 PM
The short answer is this: useful corner outfielders do not slug less than .300 on the road.

That clears it up! The value of a MLB LF can be conclusively determined by their slugging percentage on the road.

Is there some kind of award for the stupidest stat-head comment of the year? Dan (or whatever the hell his name is) just locked it up.

Podsednik is deliriously overrated by the mainstream media

What's the evidence of this? Everything I've read says that Podsednik is overrated, which is logically impossible. If virtually every relevant article claims that Podsednik sucks, he can't possibly be overrated.

Jerome
09-06-2005, 06:41 PM
Had he taken the talent that he acquired before firing his scouting department and replacing them with a computer, and not gone out to try and put guys like Matt Stairs or Jeremy Giambi at leadoff, and not tried to make Scott Hatteberg an everyday 1B, etc. who knows where that team would have been.



Oakland's injuries have been fairly normal. Our best hitter missed nearly all of this season. You don't hear Sox fans bitching about it. Yanks have had injuries all year. Atlanta had 3/5 of its rotation on the shelf at once. Injuries are a bad excuse.

All of this, however, is opinion. It can be debated and never proven. Jerome, you have your opinion, I have mine, and I doubt we will ever agree. HOWEVER - THE NEXT POINT IS NOT OPINION. IT IS FACT.



That's just foolishness. McGwire, Canseco, Jaha, Stairs, Giambi (2), Grieve, etc. are all known steroid users. Do I have pictures? No. However, I'd be stunned if 2 of those guys are totally clean. You can argue maybe about Jeremy Giambi. Past that - there's not much an arguement.

I'm not saying there weren't steroid users on other teams also. But the Oakland locker room was universally known to be the epicenter of steroids in baseball for a long time. If you don't want to believe that about the As, that's your choice.

You are right about steroids. I agree with you 100%. Before Beane was there there was a steroid issue, and as we saw with the Giambi brothers, Steroids were a part of the A's success.

Scott Hatteberg was a tremendous aquisition FOR THE MONEY, as are many of Beane's moves. Would he like to have a Carlos Delgado or Albert Pujols? Yes, but the A's can't really afford players like that. Because of that they have to pull the Dan Johnsons and Jay Paytons out of nowhere, and even then the A's offense is pretty pathetic.

Injuries are a bad excuse but in your initial post you seem to discredit the A's for staying injury-free, that is the only reason I mentioned injuries. And what talent did the A's have before firing the scouts? Damon? Isringhausen? Tejada? I mean yes, they had talent, but I would argue that the 'scouting' way of doing things wouldn't win as many games on such a low budget. I remember DiPodesta saying something along the lines of "In order for someone to become an Oakland A, there has to be something wrong with him." Stats don't notice these faults, where as the scouts would say "don't aquire (said player with defect), there's something wrong with him."

Daver
09-06-2005, 07:01 PM
You are right about steroids. I agree with you 100%. Before Beane was there there was a steroid issue, and as we saw with the Giambi brothers, Steroids were a part of the A's success.

Scott Hatteberg was a tremendous aquisition FOR THE MONEY, as are many of Beane's moves. Would he like to have a Carlos Delgado or Albert Pujols? Yes, but the A's can't really afford players like that. Because of that they have to pull the Dan Johnsons and Jay Paytons out of nowhere, and even then the A's offense is pretty pathetic.

Injuries are a bad excuse but in your initial post you seem to discredit the A's for staying injury-free, that is the only reason I mentioned injuries. And what talent did the A's have before firing the scouts? Damon? Isringhausen? Tejada? I mean yes, they had talent, but I would argue that the 'scouting' way of doing things wouldn't win as many games on such a low budget. I remember DiPodesta saying something along the lines of "In order for someone to become an Oakland A, there has to be something wrong with him." Stats don't notice these faults, where as the scouts would say "don't aquire (said player with defect), there's something wrong with him."

You should Google search for an Oakland A's board, they eat this kind of crap up.

maurice
09-06-2005, 07:17 PM
And what talent did the A's have before firing the scouts? Damon? Isringhausen? Tejada?

And others. In fact, the A's success preceded the firing of the scouts. Developments since the publication of Moneyball have utterly failed to confirm Lewis's thesis that the A's would win by reviewing stat sheets and drafting players that scouts hated. In fact, their most successful players (like Chavez) comport with traditional scouting standards and sometimes violate Moneyball principles. Meanwhile, a soon-to-be-26-year-old Jeremy Brown toils in obscurity while raking up errors and batting .261 for the Midland RockHounds.

voodoochile
09-06-2005, 07:26 PM
You are right about steroids. I agree with you 100%. Before Beane was there there was a steroid issue, and as we saw with the Giambi brothers, Steroids were a part of the A's success.

Scott Hatteberg was a tremendous aquisition FOR THE MONEY, as are many of Beane's moves. Would he like to have a Carlos Delgado or Albert Pujols? Yes, but the A's can't really afford players like that. Because of that they have to pull the Dan Johnsons and Jay Paytons out of nowhere, and even then the A's offense is pretty pathetic.

Injuries are a bad excuse but in your initial post you seem to discredit the A's for staying injury-free, that is the only reason I mentioned injuries. And what talent did the A's have before firing the scouts? Damon? Isringhausen? Tejada? I mean yes, they had talent, but I would argue that the 'scouting' way of doing things wouldn't win as many games on such a low budget. I remember DiPodesta saying something along the lines of "In order for someone to become an Oakland A, there has to be something wrong with him." Stats don't notice these faults, where as the scouts would say "don't aquire (said player with defect), there's something wrong with him."

When evaluating major league level talent, stats are a great barometer.

It doesn't work so well with minor league talent.

One hot streak this season is all that is saving Beane's ass from looking like a complete idiot...

jabrch
09-06-2005, 08:35 PM
You are right about steroids. I agree with you 100%. Before Beane was there there was a steroid issue, and as we saw with the Giambi brothers, Steroids were a part of the A's success.

No - there was a steroid problem during his tenure also. Up until just the last year or so they were loaded with juicers.

Scott Hatteberg was a tremendous aquisition FOR THE MONEY

Not so much... I know that's the general teachings amongst that school of thought, that Scott Hatteberg is a tremendous acquisition. But he isn't. He plays average defense at 1B. He is a .270 hitter with about 15 HRs per year. He walks a bit - to the tune of a .360 obp. But that's not close to enough to make one a tremendous aquisition playing 1B. He may possibly be one of the worst starting 1B in MLB, even at that price.

Injuries are a bad excuse but in your initial post you seem to discredit the A's for staying injury-free, that is the only reason I mentioned injuries.

I wasn't "discrediting" them, I was saying that was TREMENDOUS LUCK. To have 3 Cy Young arms go nearly 5 years together with no significant injuries is such amazing luck. I'm hoping we have the same fortune with the class of kids we have in our system now. To have no injuries to his Roidmonsters, to his IFs (until Chavez broke his hand), etc... It's amazing luck. That's not good use of statistics - or good scouting for that matter.

And what talent did the A's have before firing the scouts? Damon? Isringhausen? Tejada? I mean yes, they had talent, but I would argue that the 'scouting' way of doing things wouldn't win as many games on such a low budget.

Also the core of the team was drafted prior to this event. I believe that includes 2 of the Big 3, Tejada and Giambi. Nearly everything he had stemmed from talent he had before he fired his scouts. Post scout-firing, he got a large number of draftpicks (from players that the scouts found, before they were fired) and of them his winners so far are few and far between. (Harden, Crosby, etc.)

Daver
09-06-2005, 09:21 PM
Daver, do you really believe for one second that they would LET you join the chat? The questions you have raised throughout this thread are rational, and they necessitate a rebuttal that is grounded in fact. Call it a hunch, but something tells me that this guy never stays up late worrying about whether or not he has his facts straight. Or, for that matter, is rational.

Propellerheads have little use for facts that don't substantiate their math, you are correct on that, but by confronting them with a rationale that they have no stat for, they are basically forced to shut up.

The biggest problem in arguing with a propellerhead is wading through the cubic ton of bull**** that they spew to pick out what their actual point is, after that the rest is downhill.

Jerome
09-07-2005, 12:38 PM
All I'm trying to say is that stats-based scouting or whatever the A's are doing(performance scouting, whatever they call it) IMO deserves some credit for helping the A's stay competitive at a very low price. That is just my opinion. I respect the A's for daring to be different, and their emphasis on exploiting inefficiency, etc., and I enjoy seeing them win with their alternate methods while other, more expensive teams aren't as good.

Ol' No. 2
09-07-2005, 01:17 PM
All I'm trying to say is that stats-based scouting or whatever the A's are doing(performance scouting, whatever they call it) IMO deserves some credit for helping the A's stay competitive at a very low price. That is just my opinion. I respect the A's for daring to be different, and their emphasis on exploiting inefficiency, etc., and I enjoy seeing them win with their alternate methods while other, more expensive teams aren't as good.The A's success was about 10% stats-based scouting and 90% having three of the best pitchers in the league. On second thought, make that 5% and 95%.

maurice
09-07-2005, 02:21 PM
The problem is a general lack of evidence supporting the claim that stats-based scouting helps the A's stay competitive at a very low price. Rather, the A's "unique methods" result in some very strange contract offers to veterans like Hatteberg and Long, and a typical rate of bustout draft picks.

IMHO, the A's stay competitive at a very low price through the large number of high draft choices they have obtained and used on players valued by traditional scouting methods and players who actually violate the rules of Moneyball.

Jerome
09-07-2005, 06:11 PM
The problem is a general lack of evidence supporting the claim that stats-based scouting helps the A's stay competitive at a very low price. Rather, the A's "unique methods" result in some very strange contract offers to veterans like Hatteberg and Long, and a typical rate of bustout draft picks.

IMHO, the A's stay competitive at a very low price through the large number of high draft choices they have obtained and used on players valued by traditional scouting methods and players who actually violate the rules of Moneyball.


The A's do not run their team or draft based on the rules of the book moneyball. Moneyball is not the 'no defense, wait for the 3 run homer' approach that so many people think it is. Because of the success of the A's, and the fact that The Red Sox, Blue Jays, and Dodgers are all trying to imitate Beane, OBP is now the most valued stat in baseball. It was my understanding that the A's valued OBP so much because no one else did. Now all the intellectual pundits and even the average fan know all about the importance of a good on base percentage. Look at the A's OBP as a team. It's decent, but there at least 10 or so teams with better. A player with a high OBP is now out of the price range of the Oakland A's.

So the A's are forced to adapt, like a team on a budget should. They are now a pitching and defense team, not unlike our white sox. I remember reading an interview where Beane said flat out, he can't afford OBP. So the A's looked for other ways. Defense seems to be part of this new moneyball. Who knows, maybe Beane will in the future re-evaluate his stance on the risk vs. reward of the stolen base, bunting, etc. Haha I doubt it though.

And they don't draft according to the rules of moneyball, they just look for "market inefficiencies". For example, this year they drafted extremely high school heavy, because in their minds that's where the best value was. (I think there was something in BP about how high school pitchers were in general a great value in the draft, almost as good a value as college position players.)

As much as I love the book Moneyball, it is outdated, as the A's team is not like what the book would lead you to believe. I just admire the way, year after year, they are in or around the playoff hunt at such a low budget, especially when richer teams are copying their methods.

maurice
09-07-2005, 06:23 PM
The A's do not run their team or draft based on the rules of the book moneyball.

Yeah, I know. That's my point. They actually succeed through traditional scouting methods. The crap BB peddled to Lewis in Moneyball turned out to be BS.

the fact that The Red Sox, Blue Jays, and Dodgers are all trying to imitate Beane . . . .

The Red Cubs clearly do not immitate BB, and Toronto and LA suck. Boston is a huge revenue club and acts like one. They bought the best available pitchers and hitters and upgraded their defense down the stretch, resulting in a WS. There's nothing newfangled about that.

they don't draft according to the rules of moneyball, they just look for "market inefficiencies". For example, this year they drafted extremely high school heavy, because in their minds that's where the best value was.

. . . completely abandoning a main tennent of the failed philosophy announced by BB to Lewis in Moneyball. The notion that HS players offer good value is absolutely not a BB invention. It's a traditional scouting belief that BB vocally contested and even mocked. Now that the "innovative" aspects of his drafting philosophy have failed, he's gone back to traditional methods.

Look, it's impressive that the A's are able to stay competitive without a big payroll, but they've done it the same way Minnesota did it -- by acquiring and developing a large number of toolsy prospects -- not by any newfangled approach.

Jerome
09-07-2005, 08:54 PM
Yeah, I know. That's my point. They actually succeed through traditional scouting methods. The crap BB peddled to Lewis in Moneyball turned out to be BS.



The Red Cubs clearly do not immitate BB, and Toronto and LA suck. Boston is a huge revenue club and acts like one. They bought the best available pitchers and hitters and upgraded their defense down the stretch, resulting in a WS. There's nothing newfangled about that.



. . . completely abandoning a main tennent of the failed philosophy announced by BB to Lewis in Moneyball. The notion that HS players offer good value is absolutely not a BB invention. It's a traditional scouting belief that BB vocally contested and even mocked. Now that the "innovative" aspects of his drafting philosophy have failed, he's gone back to traditional methods.

Look, it's impressive that the A's are able to stay competitive without a big payroll, but they've done it the same way Minnesota did it -- by acquiring and developing a large number of toolsy prospects -- not by any newfangled approach.


I just think Beane is a good GM, I'm impressed that the A's can bring in all these young guys, can trade two amazing stud pitchers and actually become a better team from it, etc. I am by no means a baseball draft expert. I don't know what players were drafted by the traditional methods and which were drafted through the "innovative" methods. I assume though, that guys like Blanton, Haren, (Swisher doesn't count), etc. were aquired because they had the stats at the lower levels that the A's valued like WHIP and K/BB and K/9 and all that, that maybe other teams weren't placing as much importance on and weren't just toolsy prospects. If not, then I am indeed mistaken.

MarySwiss
09-07-2005, 09:25 PM
Propellerheads have little use for facts that don't substantiate their math, you are correct on that, but by confronting them with a rationale that they have no stat for, they are basically forced to shut up.

The biggest problem in arguing with a propellerhead is wading through the cubic ton of bull**** that they spew to pick out what their actual point is, after that the rest is downhill.

Daver, this is my point exactly. That's why there's no way that someone who argues from a position of logic would ever make his (Perry's) chat, because he (Perry) would have to shut up. And an egomaniac such as that bozo would never let that happen.

noquitter
09-07-2005, 11:06 PM
I just admire the way, year after year, they are in or around the playoff hunt at such a low budget, especially when richer teams are copying their methods.The other thing to admire about the A's is how their fans have become as obnoxious as Flubs fans. :yup:

mdep524
09-07-2005, 11:49 PM
Can't people just realize that there are multiple methods of constructing a winning team, not one golden way and none are mutually exclusive?

Billy Beane is a pretty good GM. A God? Heck no. But putting together respectable teams with a substandard payroll deserves some credit- he hasn't let his team become the Royals, Pirates or Reds. I like stats (though I think Beane takes it too far), and respect him for trying things his own way and not being swallowed up by tradition, popular sentiment and mediocrity. Hmmm doesn't that sound like someone in Chicago who converted his team from a bunch of sluggers to the grinder/speed and defense 2005 model?

KW didn't care what people thought, and he didn't care about tradition. He tried something new, and it has paid off big time. So in a way Billy Beane and Ken Williams aren't all that different.

And you can make the same dismissive argument for both: "Ehh, you can do whatever you want to the offense when you have the kind of starting pitching then have." Or, as Ol No 2 put it in this thread- "The A's success was about 10% stats-based scouting and 90% having three of the best pitchers in the league. On second thought, make that 5% and 95%."

Of course the problem comes in when the book Moneyball and the FOBB turned Beane from an unheralded GM (like KW is now) into a popular, infallible, egotistical God. Let's hope there isn't a Grinderball book in the works!

maurice
09-08-2005, 12:46 PM
Of course the problem comes in when the book Moneyball and the FOBB turned Beane from an unheralded GM (like KW is now) into a popular, infallible, egotistical God.

Exactly. BB obviously is a successful GM. The backlash against him primarily is due to his classless behavior, including his baseless defamation of traditional scouting methods -- even individual scouts and GMs. FOBB misinterpret the backlash as resentment of his effective methods, when it's actually directed at his personality and a handful of ineffective rules he advocated in Moneyball.

It was an interesting book, but the arguments it contained turned out to be wrong, so BB turned back to more effective methods. Apparently, he was more open-minded that the book suggests.

antitwins13
09-11-2005, 07:02 PM
Yeah this guy is stupid, but to his credit he has kept the South Sidaz in first place in the Fox Sports power rankings all season.

jabrch
10-04-2005, 09:57 PM
Whadaya think now Dayn?

CallMeNuts
10-04-2005, 10:22 PM
This thread has gone on for 11 pages and I don't think anyone has asked the pertinent question that jumped quickly to mind to me:

Aren't Dayn Perry and Pod's fiancee both employed by Fox Sports? Jealousy?

kevin57
10-04-2005, 10:42 PM
Except for recent Roids Rage Days of Baseball, it's always been about timely hitting, good fielding, and stealing.

ESPN needs Bonds to shine again; hence, they need the splash of HR's.

Pods doesn't give you that...except today, of course. :roflmao: