PDA

View Full Version : Pods hater...


Stoky44
02-06-2006, 11:37 AM
I find mlbtraderumors.com a very entertaining website. I guess this Flub fan is really bitter over the WS win.
He says, about the C-Lee trade back to the Sox:I don't see it. They didn't part on the best of terms, and the Sox have good outfield depth. I'm for any move that relegates Podsednik to the bench, but I don't think reacquiring Lee would be the first choice.

This is so funny, bench an all star, the spark plug of our offense, and the guy who won game 2 of WS for us. This guy is scared Pods is going to overshadow Juan on the sCrUBS

longshot7
02-06-2006, 11:40 AM
I disagree. I'd still take Lee over Podsednik. Pitching won us all those games last year.

MUsoxfan
02-06-2006, 11:45 AM
I disagree. I'd still take Lee over Podsednik. Pitching won us all those games last year.

I loved Carlos, but there's no way the Sox win with him

Dan Mega
02-06-2006, 11:48 AM
Who cares what a Flubs fan thinks. I guess they're still fuming that Pods is better than Corey "Potential" Patterson ever was as a leadoff hitter.

pdimas
02-06-2006, 11:54 AM
No way I would take Lee over Pods. Pods just was the sparkplug we needed on offense. He was the catalyst for so many things (see ALDS game 1 - Clement). I honestly never realized how much a batter could really get into a pitcher's head. I cracked up because it was evident when pitchers were getting unnerved with Pods on the base paths. Sure Lee has flashy numbers but stats don't exist for some of the things Pods does. Lord knows Iguchi got a nice steady diet of fastballs when Pods was on base.

Sargeant79
02-06-2006, 12:14 PM
No way I would take Lee over Pods. Pods just was the sparkplug we needed on offense. He was the catalyst for so many things (see ALDS game 1 - Clement). I honestly never realized how much a batter could really get into a pitcher's head. I cracked up because it was evident when pitchers were getting unnerved with Pods on the base paths. Sure Lee has flashy numbers but stats don't exist for some of the things Pods does. Lord knows Iguchi got a nice steady diet of fastballs when Pods was on base.

I absolutely agree. Lee may be a better hitter, but he wasn't the type of player the Sox needed last year. Pods was. They had a lot of guys like Lee over the years and they didn't win, largely because they didn't have a player like Podsednik. His speed and ability to be an offensive catalyst on the basepaths was the missing link to a championship, as proved last year.

likeawarlord
02-06-2006, 12:18 PM
No way I would take Lee over Pods. Pods just was the sparkplug we needed on offense. He was the catalyst for so many things (see ALDS game 1 - Clement). I honestly never realized how much a batter could really get into a pitcher's head. I cracked up because it was evident when pitchers were getting unnerved with Pods on the base paths. Sure Lee has flashy numbers but stats don't exist for some of the things Pods does. Lord knows Iguchi got a nice steady diet of fastballs when Pods was on base.

there was a huge thread on this last year. pods scored 80 runs last year, fewer than he did in 2004 with the brewers. if iguchi gets such great pitches when pods is on base, why didn't pods score more runs? there isn't any way pods can help the team without scoring. if the people behind him in the order get better pitches because he's on base, it follows logically that they would get more hits and thus drive pods in. for whatever reason that wasn't happening.

RallyBowl
02-06-2006, 12:38 PM
there isn't any way pods can help the team without scoring.


:?: :rolleyes:

Tragg
02-06-2006, 12:41 PM
I disagree. I'd still take Lee over Podsednik. Pitching won us all those games last year.
Pods got on base 35% of the time. There is nobody else on this roster who could do that, with the possible exception of Thome, batting leadoff. That's his value - as a lead off hitter.
If he starts swining for the fences and that OBP drops, he will be a liability. Until then, he's an asset

Chisox003
02-06-2006, 12:46 PM
Wow, I'm absolutely shocked (I know, I shouldn't be, it's Whats the Score) that people would still be debating the Lee/Podsednik deal.

After our first ****ing World Series in 88 years? Are you ****ing me?

What's the Score = ****house Jr.

:rolleyes:

Flight #24
02-06-2006, 12:49 PM
there was a huge thread on this last year. pods scored 80 runs last year, fewer than he did in 2004 with the brewers. if iguchi gets such great pitches when pods is on base, why didn't pods score more runs? there isn't any way pods can help the team without scoring. if the people behind him in the order get better pitches because he's on base, it follows logically that they would get more hits and thus drive pods in. for whatever reason that wasn't happening.

Ummm...he also had 140 fewer ABs in 2005 because of injury, which doesn't count unproductive ABs when he was trying to play through it. And all of that resulted in 5 fewer runs scored. For example, in the first half of the season (pre-injury), he scored 50 runs in 282 ABs. So your basic premise is just plain wrong.

Also, Pods played a pretty good LF, His arm is bad, but he covers a ton of ground out there.

Ol' No. 2
02-06-2006, 12:50 PM
I find mlbtraderumors.com a very entertaining website. I guess this Flub fan is really bitter over the WS win.
He says, about the C-Lee trade back to the Sox:

This is so funny, bench an all star, the spark plug of our offense, and the guy who won game 2 of WS for us. This guy scared Pods is going to overshadow Juan on the sCrUBSPodsednik is overrated. He doesn't hit enough home runs.

mccombe_35
02-06-2006, 12:56 PM
there was a huge thread on this last year. pods scored 80 runs last year, fewer than he did in 2004 with the brewers. if iguchi gets such great pitches when pods is on base, why didn't pods score more runs? there isn't any way pods can help the team without scoring. if the people behind him in the order get better pitches because he's on base, it follows logically that they would get more hits and thus drive pods in. for whatever reason that wasn't happening.

an article in Hardball TImes today agrees with you:

"John concludes his study on how much that speedster on first base disrupts the pitcher, if at all."

directly from the article:

So, the next time you tune into the White Sox game and Hawk Harrelson is telling you that "Scotty" Podsednik (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/stats/players/index.php?lastName=podsednik), by virtue of his ability to disrupt the pitcher, is worth more than what his statistics show, well you now know he's telling you the truth. Podsednik is worth a little over one more run per season.

The whole article:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/

Gremlin3
02-06-2006, 01:09 PM
I disagree. I'd still take Lee over Podsednik. Pitching won us all those games last year.

How comfortable was our pitching staff with an early lead because we were able to manufacture 1 or 2 runs?

mccombe_35
02-06-2006, 01:10 PM
Ummm...he also had 140 fewer ABs in 2005 because of injury, which doesn't count unproductive ABs when he was trying to play through it. And all of that resulted in 5 fewer runs scored. For example, in the first half of the season (pre-injury), he scored 50 runs in 282 ABs. So your basic premise is just plain wrong.

Also, Pods played a pretty good LF, His arm is bad, but he covers a ton of ground out there.

IMO Pods "low" run total is because of the lack of hitting behind him in the lineup. Well, & Pods missed 33 games.

WHen Pods was healthy (most of the 1st half) he scored 50 runs before the AS break without hitting a HR, & with the rest of the lineup really struggling. IIRC Pods was the only player hitting above .280 at the break.

Iguchi was great in the 2 hole moving Pods along, & that combined with Pods stealing all those bases put him in scoring position a ton. But besides Carl Everett it seems like the #3 & #4 spots in the lineup were not very productive, especially with RISP.

For the season the Sox #3 hitters hit .234, & while the #4 was much better at .289, the #4 hitters still were not driving in the guys on base - Konerko hit cleanup for 150 games & hit just .246 with RISP & .176 with RISP & 2 outs.

Hitmen77
02-06-2006, 01:47 PM
don't forget that exchanging CLee for Pods freed up money on the payroll that allowed the Sox to sign other free agents. Who else wouldn't have been on our team in '05 if we didn't trade Lee's salary? AJ? Iguchi?

Also, IIRC the Sox Aug-Sept. struggles roughly coincided with Pods's injury where he was either slowed down or out of the lineup.

Flight #24
02-06-2006, 02:17 PM
IMO Pods "low" run total is because of the lack of hitting behind him in the lineup. Well, & Pods missed 33 games.

WHen Pods was healthy (most of the 1st half) he scored 50 runs before the AS break without hitting a HR, & with the rest of the lineup really struggling. IIRC Pods was the only player hitting above .280 at the break.

Iguchi was great in the 2 hole moving Pods along, & that combined with Pods stealing all those bases put him in scoring position a ton. But besides Carl Everett it seems like the #3 & #4 spots in the lineup were not very productive, especially with RISP.

For the season the Sox #3 hitters hit .234, & while the #4 was much better at .289, the #4 hitters still were not driving in the guys on base - Konerko hit cleanup for 150 games & hit just .246 with RISP & .176 with RISP & 2 outs.

Well put, both factors significantly depressed Pods run totals. Which makes you wonder - in the revamped O and with an injury-free season, he could make a huge impact.

TheDarkGundam
02-06-2006, 02:24 PM
This is so funny, bench an all star, the spark plug of our offense, and the guy who won game 2 of WS for us.
Not to mention he's...you know, *dreamy*
:pods::wink:
:tongue:

mccombe_35
02-06-2006, 02:29 PM
Well put, both factors significantly depressed Pods run totals. Which makes you wonder - in the revamped O and with an injury-free season, he could make a huge impact.

Thanks. I seem to get into this debate a lot. More Pods haters out there than I expected. They do focus on the 80 runs & say he wasn't doing his job while pointing out his SBs were pointless because he wasn't scoring the runs.

The best comeback I have is pointing out Ichiro. Ichiro's worst run total for a season in his career was 2004 (101 runs). THe only season of his career where he wasn't a top 10 run scorer. That season he broke the single season hit record, & had a career high .372 average & a .414 OB%. Also had a career high & major league leading # of times on base - 315 times on base, 34 more times on base than any other season.

fquaye149
02-06-2006, 02:52 PM
This thread is nuts.

You have the people saying we'd be worse with C Lee...and then you have the people who say we'd be much better with Lee.

Most likely we would have won the WS with Carlos, and been just as good.

Yes, Pods did a lot of great things for us, but Carlos Lee mashed for the Brewers. No Carlos couldn't replace the sb threat Pods was, nor could he have replaced the production at the top of the order, but Pods can't come close to his power. Whatever we lost in "grinderball" we would have made up for in 30+ homeruns, 80+ RBI. Vice versa too.

If the Mariners had traded Ichiro for, say, Tejada, would they have been any better or worse? Probably not. Would the Orioles have been any better or worse? Probably not.

The reason Pods for Lee was such a great deal is it freed up salary. Not because Pods is the savior and Lee was a saboteur.

dickallen15
02-06-2006, 03:30 PM
No way I would take Lee over Pods. Pods just was the sparkplug we needed on offense. He was the catalyst for so many things (see ALDS game 1 - Clement). I honestly never realized how much a batter could really get into a pitcher's head. I cracked up because it was evident when pitchers were getting unnerved with Pods on the base paths. Sure Lee has flashy numbers but stats don't exist for some of the things Pods does. Lord knows Iguchi got a nice steady diet of fastballs when Pods was on base.

If Pods had such an effect "unnerving" pitchers, how come he only scored 85 runs?

Ol' No. 2
02-06-2006, 03:56 PM
This thread is nuts.

You have the people saying we'd be worse with C Lee...and then you have the people who say we'd be much better with Lee.

Most likely we would have won the WS with Carlos, and been just as good.

Yes, Pods did a lot of great things for us, but Carlos Lee mashed for the Brewers. No Carlos couldn't replace the sb threat Pods was, nor could he have replaced the production at the top of the order, but Pods can't come close to his power. Whatever we lost in "grinderball" we would have made up for in 30+ homeruns, 80+ RBI. Vice versa too.

If the Mariners had traded Ichiro for, say, Tejada, would they have been any better or worse? Probably not. Would the Orioles have been any better or worse? Probably not.

The reason Pods for Lee was such a great deal is it freed up salary. Not because Pods is the savior and Lee was a saboteur.Lee did all his "mashing" in May and June. Look at his splits (http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/individual_player_splits.jsp?c_id=mil&playerID=150324&statType=1) from July-Sept.

gobears1987
02-06-2006, 03:58 PM
there was a huge thread on this last year. pods scored 80 runs last year, fewer than he did in 2004 with the brewers. if iguchi gets such great pitches when pods is on base, why didn't pods score more runs? there isn't any way pods can help the team without scoring. if the people behind him in the order get better pitches because he's on base, it follows logically that they would get more hits and thus drive pods in. for whatever reason that wasn't happening.Why? Because Pods was injured the 2nd half of the year and lost much of his speed as a result. Do you even realize he had to have hernia surgery after the season ended? If he was 100% healthy as he was in the 1st half, then his stats would be better.

Flight #24
02-06-2006, 04:30 PM
This thread is nuts.

You have the people saying we'd be worse with C Lee...and then you have the people who say we'd be much better with Lee.

Most likely we would have won the WS with Carlos, and been just as good.

Yes, Pods did a lot of great things for us, but Carlos Lee mashed for the Brewers. No Carlos couldn't replace the sb threat Pods was, nor could he have replaced the production at the top of the order, but Pods can't come close to his power. Whatever we lost in "grinderball" we would have made up for in 30+ homeruns, 80+ RBI. Vice versa too.

If the Mariners had traded Ichiro for, say, Tejada, would they have been any better or worse? Probably not. Would the Orioles have been any better or worse? Probably not.

The reason Pods for Lee was such a great deal is it freed up salary. Not because Pods is the savior and Lee was a saboteur.

There are IMO 2 separate points on the Lee-Pods trade:

#1 is indisputable: was it a good trade for the Sox? Undoubtedly yes, because it freed up a ton of salary to be redeployed, which resulted in the Sox being a significantly better team after the dust had cleared.

#2 is more debatable: is/was Podsednik a better player than Lee? That's where sabermetrically you'll get an "undoubtedly Lee is better" argument, but those who believe in the non-quantifiable impact of speed will argue it's pretty even.

What IMO is often missed on point #2 is that Podsednik was a better match for the Sox than Lee because he provided balance to the offense, whereas an offense with Lee was more powerful, but unbalanced, which made it more vulnerable to getting shut down when the HRs weren't flying.

However, if Dye/Thome/Konerko goes down, Lee would be a great fit back with the Sox because he'd replace the lost power.

Iwritecode
02-06-2006, 04:39 PM
What IMO is often missed on point #2 is that Podsednik was a better match for the Sox than Lee because he provided balance to the offense, whereas an offense with Lee was more powerful, but unbalanced, which made it more vulnerable to getting shut down when the HRs weren't flying.

You really don't even have to look at the stats. Just look at the past results. Historically the Sox have been a team that has done well when they have had a legitamite lead-off guy at the top of the lineup.

In 1993 Lance Johnson was the sparkplug.

In 2000 when they won the division Ray Durham was the sparkplug. It seemed like whenver Durham went into a slump, so did the rest of the team.

In 2002 when Lofton was healthy they were unstoppable for the first 1.5 months of the season. Lofton got hurt and the team went into the toliet.

In 2005 they incountered their worst slump of the season when "guess who" was on the bench hurt?

MUsoxfan
02-06-2006, 04:49 PM
World Series won with Podsednik: 1
World Series won with Lee: 0


End of argument

Frater Perdurabo
02-06-2006, 05:06 PM
World Series won with Podsednik: 1
World Series won with Lee: 0


End of argument

Amen.

Also, I'd be interested to see how many runs previous Sox leadoff hitters scored in 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001. Furthermore, as the leadoff hitter, a large portion of the 80 runs Pods scored in 2005 were in the first inning, which gave the Sox starting pitcher a cushion, allowing him to relax and throw strikes, get ground ball outs, go deeper into games, and save the bullpen. Stat-heads who take stats in isolation to determine a player's worth without considering the context in which those stats were generated are producing worthless analyses, IMHO.

SoxFan76
02-06-2006, 05:25 PM
Lee did all his "mashing" in May and June. Look at his splits (http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/individual_player_splits.jsp?c_id=mil&playerID=150324&statType=1) from July-Sept.

ON2, always the voice of reason. What would we do without you?

And Dye's numbers were pretty similar to Lee's in 05. Except Dye plays better defense. KW essentially replaced Carlos Lee with Jermaine Dye, if you look at it that way. Sounds like a deal to me.

SoxSpeed22
02-06-2006, 05:39 PM
Also, I'd be interested to see how many runs previous Sox leadoff hitters scored in 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001. Furthermore, as the leadoff hitter, a large portion of the 80 runs Pods scored in 2005 were in the first inning, which gave the Sox starting pitcher a cushion, allowing him to relax and throw strikes, get ground ball outs, go deeper into games, and save the bullpen. Stat-heads who take stats in isolation to determine a player's worth without considering the context in which those stats were generated are producing worthless analyses, IMHO. 2004- Harris scored 50 runs, Rowand scored 31, Uribe scored 16 and Timo scored 8 runs. But the instability is there.
2003- Jimenez, Alomar and Graffanino scored 30 and Harris scored 12.
2002- Lofton scored 66 before he was traded. Jimenez scored 22 and WTP Durham scored 16. Harris scored 10, Rowand scored 8 and Graff scored 2. Lofton was probebly the last stable lead-off man before Pods.
2001- Durham scored 104 runs, but injuries slowed us down that year. I don't know how many of those came in the 1st. The lineup was there for these years, but the pitching was not.

itsnotrequired
02-06-2006, 06:13 PM
And Dye's numbers were pretty similar to Lee's in 05. Except Dye plays better defense. KW essentially replaced Carlos Lee with Jermaine Dye, if you look at it that way. Sounds like a deal to me.

Especially since Dye garners half the salary of Lee ($4 mil vs. $8 mil).

thomas35forever
02-06-2006, 06:20 PM
Lee was a better hitter, I admit. But Pods is stealing bases and giving us a lot of speed. As long as he's able to do that, I do not C-Lee back in Chicago.

likeawarlord
02-06-2006, 06:21 PM
lee drove in 114 and scored 85, pods only drove in 25. even through 130 games, pods would have had to be scoring a lot more to make up the difference in run production. again, there is effectively no way pods can help the offense without scoring runs.

thanks, mccombe, for the link.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/

MUsoxfan
02-06-2006, 06:25 PM
lee drove in 114 and scored 85, pods only drove in 25. even through 130 games, pods would have had to be scoring a lot more to make up the difference in run production.

That's an awful argument. You can't skew the stats that way because one is a lead-off guy and the other is a clean-up guy. Of course Lee had more RBI's. He should. 30 or so of those RBI's are him knocking himself in. Pods was not brought here to hit HR's.

dickallen15
02-06-2006, 06:33 PM
World Series won with Podsednik: 1
World Series won with Lee: 0


End of argument

WS rings Timo Perez 1
WS rings Albert Pujols 0.

Its a stupid argument. It certainly has nothing to do with who the better player is.

MUsoxfan
02-06-2006, 06:41 PM
WS rings Timo Perez 1
WS rings Albert Pujols 0.

Its a stupid argument. It certainly has nothing to do with who the better player is.

Timo and Pujols played the same position for the same team? Interesting. Lee may be a better player. He's also an expensive player that was not a fit for this team. This team was a "team". We've seen what 242 HR's a year gets the White Sox......almost a 3rd place finish.

dickallen15
02-06-2006, 06:48 PM
Timo and Pujols played the same position for the same team? Interesting. Lee may be a better player. He's also an expensive player that was not a fit for this team. This team was a "team". We've seen what 242 HR's a year gets the White Sox......almost a 3rd place finish.


No, but how would you know for sure that putting Lee in LF instead of Pods would have spelled doom to the White Sox in 2005? In fact, Hawk was spouting off at Soxfest that if Ordonez and Thomas didn't go down in 2004, the Sox might have won the WS then. That was with Lee, and a pitching staff that wasn't nearly as strong. Lee is the better player, the White Sox wouldn't dream of giving Pods the same contract they gave Carlos. The key to that trade was the financial flexibility it brought, allowing guys like AJ and Iguchi to be signed as well.

MUsoxfan
02-06-2006, 06:51 PM
The key to that trade was the financial flexibility it brought, allowing guys like AJ and Iguchi to be signed as well.

Exactly. Pods provided the spark and his minimal salary made it so we didn't have to field Ben Davis, Harris and Borchard everyday.

fquaye149
02-06-2006, 06:59 PM
Timo and Pujols played the same position for the same team? Interesting. Lee may be a better player. He's also an expensive player that was not a fit for this team. This team was a "team". We've seen what 242 HR's a year gets the White Sox......almost a 3rd place finish.

How about:

Number of World Series wins with Willie Harris as utility infielder: 1
Number of World Series wins with Tony G as utility infielder: 0

Number of WS with Big Hurt at full-time DH: 0
Number of WS with Crazy Carl as DH: 1

I'm sorry, I don't think we would have been all that much worse with Lee in left field, assuming we had the financial flexibility.

How was Everett a good fit for this team?....

242 HR a year gets the WS a third place (SIC) finish because we had four starting pitchers. I love Ozzieball...hell, I love anything that gets us a WS title, but put our ****ing 2005 pitching staff on the 2004 or 2003 team and I think we have a much better team than the 2005 team...and the 2005 team won the world series.

MUsoxfan
02-06-2006, 07:07 PM
The fact of the matter is that the Sox won it all. It's all that any of us wanted. They exceeded most expectations. Yet, people are still second-guessing trades that led to the World Series. Please....be happy with a World Series and the players that were on the team.

Stoky44
02-06-2006, 07:34 PM
This entire thread got hijacked, I was just making a point about how funny I thought it was that the guy at mlbtraderumors.com thought Pods was so bad that he should be benched and that anyone would be better than him.

kevin57
02-06-2006, 08:10 PM
If Pods does lose his edge in getting on base, stealing bases, etc. then, yeah, he's not a decisvie factor in a post-season, but nobody can reasonably argue that when he was getting on base and unnerving pitchers by stealing or playing his part in a hit-and-run with Iguchi, he was not a factor.

There are a lot of PODS haters out there. I wonder why.

Ol' No. 2
02-06-2006, 08:12 PM
That's an awful argument. You can't skew the stats that way because one is a lead-off guy and the other is a clean-up guy. Of course Lee had more RBI's. He should. 30 or so of those RBI's are him knocking himself in. Pods was not brought here to hit HR's.Sure you can. Just ask Joe Sheehan.:rolleyes:

soxinem1
02-06-2006, 08:39 PM
don't forget that exchanging CLee for Pods freed up money on the payroll that allowed the Sox to sign other free agents. Who else wouldn't have been on our team in '05 if we didn't trade Lee's salary? AJ? Iguchi?

Also, IIRC the Sox Aug-Sept. struggles roughly coincided with Pods's injury where he was either slowed down or out of the lineup.


An excellent point. Let's not forget that other than the month Thomas was in the line up, this team was not exactly a run scoring machine most of 2005. Pods was so far out in front in SB's at one point he would have nabbed about 90 if he didn't get hurt. He may have scored 80 runs, but he missed a lot of games and played hurt for the last 40 or so. He easilly scores 100+ and swipes 80 if he does not get hurt.

I like CLee as much as anyone and think he has been bashed a little unfairly on this board, but no way we win the World Series with him on the team last year. We'd have had no catcher, no fifth starter, no closer to take Shingo's place when he was getting bombed, and no where near the record in one run games if CLee would have stayed.

Domeshot17
02-06-2006, 08:41 PM
This thread is a joke. You cant compare the offensive stats of a LEAD OFF hitter and a clean up hitter. Its really that simple. I loved Carlos, but common. We learned in 2003 and 2004 that a lineup full of home run hitters without a lead off man doesnt work. What did 2005 have that the others year didnt? BALANCE. You had a lead off hitter who did his job, a 2 hitter who did his THEN a heart of the order that did theirs and a back end of a lineup that played great D and hit when we needed them too. Pods has the intangiables. He runs out balls, Lee jogs all the time. He doesnt hustle and he was lazy. He created a bad vibe in the clubhouse. Magglio did the same.

This arguement sounds like something from Rob Neyer. Yes Carlos Lee hit more home runs, and drove in more runs, and was in the home run derby. Big Deal. You want lee over Dye there is an arguement. But Lee over Pods and who leads off? You guys need to think in terms of the total impact on the team, and not the total impact of one player over another. Lee is compariable to our 3 4 5 6 hitters but thats it.

Stoky44
02-06-2006, 09:16 PM
How about:

Number of World Series wins with Willie Harris as utility infielder: 1
Number of World Series wins with Tony G as utility infielder: 0

Number of WS with Big Hurt at full-time DH: 0
Number of WS with Crazy Carl as DH: 1

I'm sorry, I don't think we would have been all that much worse with Lee in left field, assuming we had the financial flexibility.



I did not want to get in this arguement. But we would not have won the WS with Lee in LF. For one, who's are leadoff hitter? That should answer the question right there. C-Lee gave us another #5 hitter to clog the bases, don't give me stolen base numbers and tell me he was not that slow either. WS teams need a leadoff hitter. Another thing, Pods was better defensively. Thirdly, I have heard the whole arguement that Pods only had 80 runs so he didn't help us out much. Well how about when the 2004 team and C-Lee would hit a 2 run homer when we were up by 3 already or down 6 because of unearned runs or a lack of an ability to get under some flies hit in the gap or down the left field line. That doesn't mater either, and it is pading his stats. How about the many times we could not score in 2004 and lose 2-0 after the night before we won by 6.

I would not argue that overall Pods is better than CLee, or that CLee is beter than Pods because except for playing the same postion they are totally different players.

But I will argue and defend that Pods was more valuable to this team than Lee would have been this year for the Sox.

mccombe_35
02-06-2006, 09:31 PM
Carlos Lee is a better player & had a better year than Pods. But as others have mentioned it's not a Carlos vs Pods thing.

Its a Carlos, Magglio, & about 4 or so players that all were AAA talent being out there vs Pods, Dye, Iguchi, AJ, El Duque, Hermanson thing.

imo

likeawarlord
02-06-2006, 09:52 PM
That's an awful argument. You can't skew the stats that way because one is a lead-off guy and the other is a clean-up guy. Of course Lee had more RBI's. He should. 30 or so of those RBI's are him knocking himself in. Pods was not brought here to hit HR's.

you're off your rocker if you think lee would have driven in fewer than 25 runs as a lead off hitter or pods would have put up more than 114 as a clean up hitter. pods may not have been brought here to hit hrs, but he sure as hell WAS brought here to be a productive offensive player. next year, if he has an entirely healthy season, maybe the situation will change, but this year he did not play well enough to represent an improvement offensively over carlos lee.

Chisox003
02-06-2006, 09:57 PM
you're off your rocker if you think lee would have driven in fewer than 25 runs as a lead off hitter or pods would have put up more than 114 as a clean up hitter. pods may not have been brought here to hit hrs, but he sure as hell WAS brought here to be a productive offensive player. next year, if he has an entirely healthy season, maybe the situation will change, but this year he did not play well enough to represent an improvement offensively over carlos lee.
You gotta be kidding me..... :o:

Please tell me you're joking around

IlliniSox4Life
02-06-2006, 10:21 PM
Our offense was much more consistant with Pods. No, he's not going to have nights where he goes 5-5 with 2HR and 8RBI. I can almost gaurantee you if one were to do a statistical analysis of runs scored in 2004 versus 2005, 04 would have a much higher variance than 05. A team with a great pitching staff does not need 14 runs one night and 1 the next....I'd much rather have 5 each night even though they only add up to 2/3 the amount. That is why we won so many 1 run games this year.

And all that aside, the team believes they are better with Podsednik on. Look how they rallied for him to get on the AS team. Confidence is a big part of baseball.

likeawarlord
02-07-2006, 12:21 AM
You gotta be kidding me..... :o:

Please tell me you're joking around

here, explain to me what you think pods did for the offense. how can he possibly represent an offensive improvement over carlos lee? go read that story from the hardball times if you really feel that his presence on the basepaths made the other players better hitters. i'm not going to hold his stolen base rate against him because he was injured, but he hit for an awful .700 ops and while he was scoring runs at a solid rate, it was far short of spectacular. even if he'd played a full season (every single game) he was only on pace for 100 runs, good enough for 23rd in the majors. seriously, if you can think of a way he can help the offense without scoring runs, let me know. i'm a huge fan of pods, and i wouldn't exchange him for c lee, but come on, lee is a better offensive player, regardless of what role pods plays in the lineup.

fquaye149
02-07-2006, 12:43 AM
I did not want to get in this arguement. But we would not have won the WS with Lee in LF. For one, who's are leadoff hitter? That should answer the question right there. C-Lee gave us another #5 hitter to clog the bases, don't give me stolen base numbers and tell me he was not that slow either. WS teams need a leadoff hitter. Another thing, Pods was better defensively. Thirdly, I have heard the whole arguement that Pods only had 80 runs so he didn't help us out much. Well how about when the 2004 team and C-Lee would hit a 2 run homer when we were up by 3 already or down 6 because of unearned runs or a lack of an ability to get under some flies hit in the gap or down the left field line. That doesn't mater either, and it is pading his stats. How about the many times we could not score in 2004 and lose 2-0 after the night before we won by 6.

.

This is a very sketchy issue. Ok let's assume we didn't have a leadoff hitter. Let's assume a leadoff hitter is necessary. I'm not a sabr head so I'm willing to make the assumption that speed at the top of the order is necessary (I think you're right on that, I really do). Nevertheless, Iguchi was a decent ballplayer. I think he could have hit a solid 1 spot. That would have probably put our lineup at, come world series time:

Iguchi
Uribe
Lee
Konerko
Dye
Everett
Rowand
Pierzynski
Crede

Not a perfect lineup, but do you honestly think it's any less formidable than

Podsednik
Iguchi
Dye
Konerko
Everett
Pierzynski
Rowand
Uribe
Crede

To be quite honest, I like our odds with the first lineup.( yes I realize how stupid it sounds to say "I like our odds with the first lineup after we won the world series....I'm not a dark cloud, I swear. I just don't want to overrate Pods' contributions...I think it should be enough to say he's the caliber of Lee, a legitimate all-star[non-25th man voted]...rather than to say he's BETTER than a .280/30/100 guy)

To say unequivocably that Pods was better defensively bothers me too. I agree that Lee had his share of lapses in the field for us, and that he wasn't anything greater than a LITTLE above average...but Pods wasn't exactly GG caliber. He also had a very very weak arm...our OF arms were pathetic...Lee's arm isn't great, but I'm just saying that he's not undeniably worse in the OF than Pods.

Also, the assumption that a player is padding his stats as a power hitter is kind of flawed. You're saying he can hit home runs when he chooses but doesn't unless the game is already out of hand? I'm much more inclined to believe a base stealer is padding his stats. Catchers and pitchers are much less likely to hold a runner on when a game is out of hand than a pitcher is to serve up meatballs to a slugger..


Look...this is perhaps coming off as me bashing pods or Hangar-like deification of Lee. It's not. I'm just saying, let's not distort what this WS championship was all about: PITCHING. Not Grinderball.

Chisox003
02-07-2006, 12:50 AM
here, explain to me what you think pods did for the offense. how can he possibly represent an offensive improvement over carlos lee? go read that story from the hardball times if you really feel that his presence on the basepaths made the other players better hitters. i'm not going to hold his stolen base rate against him because he was injured, but he hit for an awful .700 ops and while he was scoring runs at a solid rate, it was far short of spectacular. even if he'd played a full season (every single game) he was only on pace for 100 runs, good enough for 23rd in the majors. seriously, if you can think of a way he can help the offense without scoring runs, let me know. i'm a huge fan of pods, and i wouldn't exchange him for c lee, but come on, lee is a better offensive player, regardless of what role pods plays in the lineup.
Ok, you got me.

My fault for coming into What's the Score

When will I learn?

IlliniSox4Life
02-07-2006, 01:40 AM
To say unequivocably that Pods was better defensively bothers me too. I agree that Lee had his share of lapses in the field for us, and that he wasn't anything greater than a LITTLE above average...but Pods wasn't exactly GG caliber. He also had a very very weak arm...our OF arms were pathetic...Lee's arm isn't great, but I'm just saying that he's not undeniably worse in the OF than Pods.

:dye:
"EXCUSE ME?"

Iwritecode
02-07-2006, 02:18 AM
Also, the assumption that a player is padding his stats as a power hitter is kind of flawed. You're saying he can hit home runs when he chooses but doesn't unless the game is already out of hand? I'm much more inclined to believe a base stealer is padding his stats. Catchers and pitchers are much less likely to hold a runner on when a game is out of hand than a pitcher is to serve up meatballs to a slugger..

It's all about the hitter's approach and swing.

We all saw what Frank Thomas did in the little bit of time he played last year. It seemed like he was hitting a homerun every other at bat. He said it's because he changed his approach. He went up there looking to swing hard every time instead of trying to work the count for a walk or place the ball in right field.

Considering the Brewers were out of contention by about the AS break, I'm sure Carlos didn't have much else to do...

Iwritecode
02-07-2006, 02:19 AM
you're off your rocker if you think lee would have driven in fewer than 25 runs as a lead off hitter or pods would have put up more than 114 as a clean up hitter. pods may not have been brought here to hit hrs, but he sure as hell WAS brought here to be a productive offensive player. next year, if he has an entirely healthy season, maybe the situation will change, but this year he did not play well enough to represent an improvement offensively over carlos lee.

Dayn Perry, is that you?

fquaye149
02-07-2006, 08:20 AM
:dye:
"EXCUSE ME?"

Lol...i almost went back and edited in "except for dye"...but i was too lazy...see what that gets me?:D:

fquaye149
02-07-2006, 08:22 AM
It's all about the hitter's approach and swing.

We all saw what Frank Thomas did in the little bit of time he played last year. It seemed like he was hitting a homerun every other at bat. He said it's because he changed his approach. He went up there looking to swing hard every time instead of trying to work the count for a walk or place the ball in right field.

Considering the Brewers were out of contention by about the AS break, I'm sure Carlos didn't have much else to do...

Perhaps...but Lee still hit .265 which would have put him in the upper echelon of BA for our team... Frank was hitting, what, .220?...

I understand your point...but it's not like Lee was closing his eyes and swinging from the heels...

MsSoxVixen22
02-07-2006, 08:36 AM
Why are people still complaining about this? :angry: I've said it once and I'll say it again. Pods is a sparkplug for this team. When he was out, the Sox went into a slight "funk." I know when Pods came back, his 2cd half wasn't as good as his 1st. Oh wait.....he did hit that walk off home run to win the game against Houston. :redneck I'll take Pods ANY day on the week. I hope that Pods stays healthy all season and has a great year. Just ignore it when people start talking **** about Pods

Stoky44
02-07-2006, 09:20 AM
This is a very sketchy issue. Ok let's assume we didn't have a leadoff hitter. Let's assume a leadoff hitter is necessary. I'm not a sabr head so I'm willing to make the assumption that speed at the top of the order is necessary (I think you're right on that, I really do). Nevertheless, Iguchi was a decent ballplayer. I think he could have hit a solid 1 spot. That would have probably put our lineup at, come world series time:

Iguchi
Uribe
Lee
Konerko
Dye
Everett
Rowand
Pierzynski
Crede

Not a perfect lineup, but do you honestly think it's any less formidable than


Yes I do. We would not be able to manufacture any runs with this lineup, see years 2001-2004.
First off we wouldn't have had the money for Iguchi or Pierzynski with out ridding Lee's contract. Secondly, we have all seen teams who try to get by without a pure leadoff man, that equals trying to slide into the playoffs (probably not making the playoffs). You have Uribe batting in the 2 hole, who we don't even know if he can, that's a question mark to go along with your huge question of Iguchi leading off. Now we only have 2 left handed batters, both at the bottom of the order. We also now have another guy who is slow and runs into double plays. And yes, Pods doesn't have a great arm, but neither did Carlos. So Pods speed, hustle, and head into the game play makes him better. You see Carlos getting to the balls in the gaps like Pods?

Flight #24
02-07-2006, 09:31 AM
Look...this is perhaps coming off as me bashing pods or Hangar-like deification of Lee. It's not. I'm just saying, let's not distort what this WS championship was all about: PITCHING. Not Grinderball.

A brief comparison:

Podsednik: .290 BA / Lee: .265 BA
Podsednik: .351 OBP / Lee: .324 OBP
Podsednik: .349 SLG / Lee: .487SLG
Podsednik: 0HR / Lee: 32HR
Podsednik: 59SB / Lee: 13SB

So effectively, you swapped a better average/on-base hitter with speed for one with a lot more power. If you weight the speed to 0 and equal the avg/OBP and the SLG, which is the sabermetric way, you get Lee being a better player because Pods advantages in the avg/OBP get outweighed by Lee's huge SLG advantage. But IMO that's incorrect. If you start to give some weight to speed and given the Sox team makeup, weight OBP slightly more importantly than SLG, it gets a lot closer. And adding in D (and yes, Pods was a superior defender to Lee because he covered a ton of ground despite a poor arm), and the "hustle" aspect, you get 2 guys in the same ballpark. I'd probably still rate Lee higher, but not ridiculously. Add in Vizcaino and it's a reasonably fair swap.

FedEx227
02-07-2006, 10:20 AM
Its a shame to see Boers and Bernstein take over this thread.

I like this simple equation

Number of World Series won with Carlos Lee in lineup: 0
Number of World Series won with Pods in lineup: 1

Pods was a great contributor, a player that cannot be completely measured by numbers, like most would love. Pod's ability to rally the team by getting on base, hit ability to distract the opposing pitcher when he was on base, the amount of area he covered in left, etc...

I'm sorry, but as much of a fan I am of Lee, the ability to get rid of his big contract and get a guy who could be more then a HR/RBI guy was huge to our teams success this year and anybody who would rather have Lee then Pods is just out of their mind. While Lee is the better offensive player, he is not the best all-around player, and I think people need to stop looking at the numbers and start looking at his impact on the team as a whole, and what he did for this team.

fquaye149
02-07-2006, 02:39 PM
A brief comparison:

Podsednik: .290 BA / Lee: .265 BA
Podsednik: .351 OBP / Lee: .324 OBP
Podsednik: .349 SLG / Lee: .487SLG
Podsednik: 0HR / Lee: 32HR
Podsednik: 59SB / Lee: 13SB

So effectively, you swapped a better average/on-base hitter with speed for one with a lot more power. If you weight the speed to 0 and equal the avg/OBP and the SLG, which is the sabermetric way, you get Lee being a better player because Pods advantages in the avg/OBP get outweighed by Lee's huge SLG advantage. But IMO that's incorrect. If you start to give some weight to speed and given the Sox team makeup, weight OBP slightly more importantly than SLG, it gets a lot closer. And adding in D (and yes, Pods was a superior defender to Lee because he covered a ton of ground despite a poor arm), and the "hustle" aspect, you get 2 guys in the same ballpark. I'd probably still rate Lee higher, but not ridiculously. Add in Vizcaino and it's a reasonably fair swap.

Which is essentially what I'm saying. Yes Pods brought many positive qualities to this team. Lee also would have brought many positive qualities to this team. I think if you eliminate the cash factor, then you wind up with Pods for Lee essentially a wash.

The fact is though, that cash was a factor, therefore the Pods for Lee trade was excellent. However, I really don't think REPLACING Lee with Pods is the reason why we won the world series. I DO think the Lee for Pods trade was one of the main reasons why we won the world series. Do people understand this difference?

fquaye149
02-07-2006, 02:42 PM
Its a shame to see Boers and Bernstein take over this thread.

I like this simple equation

Number of World Series won with Carlos Lee in lineup: 0
Number of World Series won with Pods in lineup: 1


So wait...are you saying Willie Harris was a better utility infielder for us than Tony G?

Jermaine Dye a better right fielder than Maggs?

El Duque a better pitcher than 2003 Loaiza?

Crede a better 3B than Ventura?

I could go on and on....

Remember...and I don't want to be a black cloud, but we came reasonably close to losing the division to Cleveland. We got hot at a great time and had the talent to go deep in the postseason and therefore we won. I'm ecstatic. But that doesn't mean every position player from this team is unequivocably the ultimate and best fit for this team.

Iwritecode
02-07-2006, 02:45 PM
The fact is though, that cash was a factor, therefore the Pods for Lee trade was excellent. However, I really don't think REPLACING Lee with Pods is the reason why we won the world series. I DO think the Lee for Pods trade was one of the main reasons why we won the world series. Do people understand this difference?

I'll agree with that.

The fact is comparing Lee and Pods offensively is apples and oranges. They bat in completely different spots in the lineup and have two different job to perform when they are at the plate and on the basepaths.

Now if we want to discuss bringing Lee back to replace an injured Dye, Konerko, Thome, or even Brian Anderson(Pods sliding over to CF), then I'll think about it.

FedEx227
02-07-2006, 03:01 PM
Jermaine Dye a better right fielder than Maggs?

El Duque a better pitcher than 2003 Loaiza?

Crede a better 3B than Ventura?
In some of those cases yes. Defensively Crede was better. I'd rather have El Duque on the mound in a playoff game then Esteban Loaiza

But thats not what I was talking about, I was talking about the one particular case of Pods vs. Lee. People are bringing all these numbers in about why Lee is so much better, when its just really redundant and annoying, because in the long scheme of things it didn't matter, it didn't matter when we got hot, it didn't matter that we almost lost the division, the fact of the matter is we won it all, without Carlos Lee or with Carlos Lee it doesn't really matter.

However, I really don't think REPLACING Lee with Pods is the reason why we won the world series. I DO think the Lee for Pods trade was one of the main reasons why we won the world series. Do people understand this difference?
Thats right on the money.

Did the trade win us the world series? Hell no, theres no way to say that.

Did it help? Of course it did, by trading Pods/Lee we turned our teams mentality around. With that one swap of LF we changed from a power-first team to a speed-first team. While Pods doesn't have the numbers game in his favor he very much had the team-first orientation on his side, along with the ability to add a potent amount of speed at the top of the lineup and to discredit his impact is disgraceful to him, Ozzie and Kenny Williams.

Stoky44
02-07-2006, 03:13 PM
So wait...are you saying Willie Harris was a better utility infielder for us than Tony G?

Jermaine Dye a better right fielder than Maggs?

El Duque a better pitcher than 2003 Loaiza?

Crede a better 3B than Ventura?

I could go on and on....

Remember...and I don't want to be a black cloud, but we came reasonably close to losing the division to Cleveland. We got hot at a great time and had the talent to go deep in the postseason and therefore we won. I'm ecstatic. But that doesn't mean every position player from this team is unequivocably the ultimate and best fit for this team.

This is not the arguement! It is:
-Number of World Series won with another slow HR hitter who is not good at situational hitting, and is a below average LF in lineup: 0
-Number of World Series won with a good lead off hitter and spark plug of the offense who can play a good LF in lineup: 1

Stoky44
02-07-2006, 03:17 PM
In some of those cases yes. Defensively Crede was better. I'd rather have El Duque on the mound in a playoff game then Esteban Loaiza


I don't think I can agree with you yet that Crede is better defensively yet than Ventura. I would not have a problem with saying equal, though I would not agree yet. I am not basing this off gold gloves either, b/c Joe should have won at least one already.

likeawarlord
02-07-2006, 03:21 PM
In some of those cases yes. Defensively Crede was better.

yeah, ventura only won six gold gloves, what a hack.

and anyway, i wish i was smart enough to just stop arguing the lee/pods thing. if we don't make that trade i don't think we win the world series, and all things considered, i feel the team is better with pods in left than with lee. so i'm just gonna stop talking. that said, though, the "who gave us more world series?" argument doesn't make any sense.

Flight #24
02-07-2006, 03:21 PM
However, I really don't think REPLACING Lee with Pods is the reason why we won the world series.

I think we're in agreement. HRs are not bad, and eliminating some HRs is not part of why the Sox won. It was the addition of speed/OBP/D (and the pitching, primarily). But the net of adding speed/OBP/D and subtracting the HRs was a positive for the Sox.

:offtopic:
Much like it wasn't because the Sox got rid of high salaried guys that they won, it's because they got rid of minimum-salaried chumps. The net from eliminating high salaried guys and replacing the chumps with decent players was a positive. Which is why now that there are no chumps, adding a high-salaried player isn't a bad thing (assuming they're worth the salary and you don't have to cut lesewhere to do it).

soxinem1
02-07-2006, 03:46 PM
In some of those cases yes. Defensively Crede was better. I'd rather have El Duque on the mound in a playoff game then Esteban Loaiza

But thats not what I was talking about, I was talking about the one particular case of Pods vs. Lee. People are bringing all these numbers in about why Lee is so much better, when its just really redundant and annoying, because in the long scheme of things it didn't matter, it didn't matter when we got hot, it didn't matter that we almost lost the division, the fact of the matter is we won it all, without Carlos Lee or with Carlos Lee it doesn't really matter.


Thats right on the money.

Did the trade win us the world series? Hell no, theres no way to say that.

Did it help? Of course it did, by trading Pods/Lee we turned our teams mentality around. With that one swap of LF we changed from a power-first team to a speed-first team. While Pods doesn't have the numbers game in his favor he very much had the team-first orientation on his side, along with the ability to add a potent amount of speed at the top of the lineup and to discredit his impact is disgraceful to him, Ozzie and Kenny Williams.


The reason the Sox went with this approach is the same reason why several teams, including the occupants of the outdoor urinal, is because fans have watched the Reds, Rangers, White Sox, Rockies, and a few others crush the ball and even score a ton of runs on the season, but have no ability to manufacture a run on days they were being shut down.

In ST of 2004 Oz said he wanted the team to do that, but having CLee, Maggs, Frank, and others in that lineup playing small ball just was not possible because they were not those types of players. And while we pounded the ball frequently that year, we lost a TON of games because we could not execute. We must have stranded 200 guys at 2nd and 3rd with nobody or one out in 2004. We should have won another ten games just on simple execution plays.

While I liked Maggs, Valentin, and CLee very much, too much of one thing was not working. We didn't replace CLee, we replaced him, Ordonez, Valentin, and Harris. Willie could have been the lead off guy, but he was not interested in doing what he had to on a daily basis to get on base.

So why Pods is getting nailed by some posters or why is he being compared to CLee is absurd, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Babe Ruth to Harry Chappas, Bobby Bonilla to Juan Bonilla. The comparisons are not relevant or fair. But I'm sure CLee would like to have that Championship ring on his finger.......

So enough of the comparisons, we are defending World Champions, we should be discussing what we need to do in 2006 to get back, not rehash a trade that worked out well for both teams.

likeawarlord
02-07-2006, 09:11 PM
So enough of the comparisons, we are defending World Champions, we should be discussing what we need to do in 2006 to get back, not rehash a trade that worked out well for both teams.

sorry, i didn't realize discussion was limited to certain topics.

FedEx227
02-07-2006, 11:07 PM
yeah, ventura only won six gold gloves, what a hack.

Yeah I agree I went over-board with that...

but then again I think we all know gold gloves don't always go to the best fielders, but rather the good fielders who are also great hitters.

MUsoxfan
02-07-2006, 11:12 PM
Yeah I agree I went over-board with that...

but then again I think we all know gold gloves don't always go to the best fielders, but rather the good fielders who are also great hitters.
[/color]

Rather the decent fielders with the big names

JoeItalia7
02-08-2006, 10:21 AM
i could be wrong but didnt pods have the highest batting order on the team during regular season?

Iwritecode
02-08-2006, 10:36 AM
i could be wrong but didnt pods have the highest batting order on the team during regular season?

He was highest in the batting order (being the lead-off man and all), but I don't think that's what you meant to ask... :D:

He also had the highest batting average. :wink:

fquaye149
02-08-2006, 01:20 PM
The reason the Sox went with this approach is the same reason why several teams, including the occupants of the outdoor urinal, is because fans have watched the Reds, Rangers, White Sox, Rockies, and a few others crush the ball and even score a ton of runs on the season, but have no ability to manufacture a run on days they were being shut down.


LOL what do the Reds, Rangers, and Rockies have in common besides the ability to crush the ball and the letter R?

NO ****ING PITCHING.

It's not manufacturing runs. It's PITCHING.

Yeah manufacturing runs is nice, if you need it, but put our pitching staff with the Reds, Rangers or Rockies (not this past season, but previous seasons) lineups and I'm pretty sure you'd have the WS trophy in Cincy, Arlington, or Colorado.

Iwritecode
02-08-2006, 01:51 PM
LOL what do the Reds, Rangers, and Rockies have in common besides the ability to crush the ball and the letter R?

NO ****ING PITCHING.

It's not manufacturing runs. It's PITCHING.

Yeah manufacturing runs is nice, if you need it, but put our pitching staff with the Reds, Rangers or Rockies (not this past season, but previous seasons) lineups and I'm pretty sure you'd have the WS trophy in Cincy, Arlington, or Colorado.

I'm not sure Colorado will ever have a good pitching staff. With that thin air even good pitchers would see their ERA's rise over a full season.

Ol' No. 2
02-08-2006, 01:56 PM
LOL what do the Reds, Rangers, and Rockies have in common besides the ability to crush the ball and the letter R?

NO ****ING PITCHING.

It's not manufacturing runs. It's PITCHING.

Yeah manufacturing runs is nice, if you need it, but put our pitching staff with the Reds, Rangers or Rockies (not this past season, but previous seasons) lineups and I'm pretty sure you'd have the WS trophy in Cincy, Arlington, or Colorado.Pitching certainly reduces the runs against, but you still have to score more than the other team to win. In 2004 the White Sox had the most inconsistent offense in all of MLB. I haven't crunched the numbers for 2005 yet, but I'm willing to bet that inconsistency was way down. Whether you score 7 runs or 12 runs hardly makes a difference in your chances of winning. But the difference between scoring 1 or 4 makes a HUGE difference. Even with the same total runs scored, fewer games with 1 or fewer runs means a lot fewer losses. This is a big part of the reason the Sox exceeded their Pythagorean W-L record.

longshot7
02-08-2006, 02:32 PM
I'm revisiting this thread, and what have we learned thus far?

(crickets chirping)



I thought so.

fquaye149
02-08-2006, 03:00 PM
Pitching certainly reduces the runs against, but you still have to score more than the other team to win. In 2004 the White Sox had the most inconsistent offense in all of MLB. I haven't crunched the numbers for 2005 yet, but I'm willing to bet that inconsistency was way down. Whether you score 7 runs or 12 runs hardly makes a difference in your chances of winning. But the difference between scoring 1 or 4 makes a HUGE difference. Even with the same total runs scored, fewer games with 1 or fewer runs means a lot fewer losses. This is a big part of the reason the Sox exceeded their Pythagorean W-L record.
This is true. We also had a largely futile pitching staff. Scott Schoenweis and Danny Wright were both penciled in as starters when the season started.

We had Buehrle, Garland, Loaiza, Schoenweis, and Wright. And don't get me started on our bullpen.

Sorry, not impressed. Put our pitching staff this year in front of any one of those teams' lineups (2003 or 2004 Sox) or the Reds or Rangers of this year (as hugely inconsistent offensively as both those teams were) and I feel you have a very strong world series contender, perhaps even stronger than the 2005 WS champion White Sox (as strange as that is to say)


Remember: even with all the blown saves, the 5th starter debacles (Felix Diaz anyone?) we were still within sniffing distance of the division. I think it's pretty clear that if Frank and Maggs had not gone down we would have been likely to have won the central handily. Put our pitching staff on that squad and I think the diff. between grinderball and station to station would have been pretty much a nonissue

mccombe_35
02-08-2006, 04:10 PM
I can't find the site, but I read that the '05 Sox scored 4 runs or less exactly as many times as the '04 Sox. The difference was the '05 Sox won 19 more of those games.

likeawarlord
02-09-2006, 09:14 AM
I can't find the site, but I read that the '05 Sox scored 4 runs or less exactly as many times as the '04 Sox. The difference was the '05 Sox won 19 more of those games.

makes sense to me

soxinem1
02-10-2006, 01:37 PM
LOL what do the Reds, Rangers, and Rockies have in common besides the ability to crush the ball and the letter R?

NO ****ING PITCHING.

It's not manufacturing runs. It's PITCHING.

Yeah manufacturing runs is nice, if you need it, but put our pitching staff with the Reds, Rangers or Rockies (not this past season, but previous seasons) lineups and I'm pretty sure you'd have the WS trophy in Cincy, Arlington, or Colorado.

You are partially correct. The defense of the White Sox last year, in terms of plays made, range, and lower errors made the staff better. I believe the Sox led the ML in total chances, infield assists, and putouts. That means more plays are made, outs recorded, and fewer runs allowed. God forbid if we have to go back to the 'four outs in an inning' routine.

And it is manufacturing runs. Great pitching cannot give you a 0-0 or 2-2 win, right? The 2005 Sox were sucessful because tey jumped on the bord first quite often. Remember that 35 straight games with a lead? It was no fluke, this team came prepared to execute almost every day.

The new players, especially Pods and Dye, did more for their positions defensively than their immediate predecessors, and that helped, along with Uribe replacing Valentin at SS. The White Sox stunk defensively for the better part of ten years before this past season. Defense is the biggest thing that makes your pitching better, especially since we do not have starter that get huge KO totals. I think Vasquez may be an exception, but he has not pitched for us yet.

The team the 2005 White Sox remind me of is the 1990 Reds. They were not respected very much either. But they had great team speed, played well defensively, and had a bullpen that was nails tough. Plus, they allowed fewer hits than anyone. They also had real timely hitting, though they were not a powerful or big run scoring team.

I would just hate to see us fall in the all hit/no 4th or 5th starter thing again. That type of team cost us at least two division titles in this decade.

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2006, 01:53 PM
I can't find the site, but I read that the '05 Sox scored 4 runs or less exactly as many times as the '04 Sox. The difference was the '05 Sox won 19 more of those games.There was a good article (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-didnt-know-last-week11/) about this mid-way through the 2005 season. The difference is that they scored only one or two runs a lot less frequently. Those games are tough to win no matter how good your pitching is. What the article concluded was that even though the Sox were scoring fewer runs than the average team, they were more consistent (i.e. more games in the mid-range where you win). This is the essense of smartball.In fact, if you multiply the White Sox's run distribution times the average winning percent for each number of runs scored, you'll find that the Sox have an "expected" winning percentage of .540! Despite the fact that they are scoring nearly half a run less than average! And when you add in the fine performance of their pitching staff, you have this year's White Sox.He expands on it more here (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/runs-per-game/).

maurice
02-10-2006, 02:11 PM
The difference is that they scored only one or two runs a lot less frequently.

. . . which is interesting, because you'll recall that we had a pre-season thread on this exact topic. The BB-lovers insisted that this was not possible, that situational hitting is wasteful, and that the Sox were destined to lose in 2005. Most of these folks disappeared a few months into the season, as the Sox rolled up 1-run win after 1-run win.

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2006, 03:06 PM
. . . which is interesting, because you'll recall that we had a pre-season thread on this exact topic. The BB-lovers insisted that this was not possible, that situational hitting is wasteful, and that the Sox were destined to lose in 2005. Most of these folks disappeared a few months into the season, as the Sox rolled up 1-run win after 1-run win.Must be luck.