PDA

View Full Version : Pods Losing Fan support


cgaudin
08-05-2006, 11:41 PM
Scott Podsednic made yet another bonehead baserunning play in the first inning when he ran towards home plate on a grounder to third, and got caught. As popular as he was last year, I find it difficult to swallow how so many fans in many of these forums want to give this guy the "Heisman", as in a push out the back door.

Truth is, he ain't helping endear himself to the fan base. He has not been the baserunner of last year, and his defense has been atrocious at times. However, we need to be reminded just how difficult it is to find a "serviceable" lead off hitter. Pods has the tools, and he's shown us that much, to be sure. He has not been consistent this year, and the manner in which the Sox's offense is assembled, if he doesn't get on base, the Sox's winning chances dwindle. But I think some of us need to get off his back, and let him play. He did win a World Series game in walk-off fashion, didn't he?

CubsfansareDRUNK
08-05-2006, 11:43 PM
Scott Podsednic made yet another bonehead baserunning play in the first inning when he ran towards home plate on a grounder to third, and got caught. As popular as he was last year, I find it difficult to swallow how so many fans in many of these forums want to give this guy the "Heisman", as in a push out the back door.

Truth is, he ain't helping endear himself to the fan base. He has not been the baserunner of last year, and his defense has been atrocious at times. However, we need to be reminded just how difficult it is to find a "serviceable" lead off hitter. Pods has the tools, and he's shown us that much, to be sure. He has not been consistent this year, and the manner in which the Sox's offense is assembled, if he doesn't get on base, the Sox's winning chances dwindle. But I think some of us need to get off his back, and let him play. He did win a World Series game in walk-off fashion, didn't he?


one question...who is Scott Podsednic?

TheDarkGundam
08-05-2006, 11:50 PM
one question...who is Scott Podsednic?
I dunno, but I hear he's friends with Brain Anderson. :redneck

batmanZoSo
08-05-2006, 11:55 PM
He hit a lucky homer in the World Series, let's forget that he sucks at running the bases.

Come on, I'm all for supporting him and hoping for the best but do better than that.

CubsfansareDRUNK
08-05-2006, 11:55 PM
I dunno, but I hear he's friends with Brain Anderson. :redneck


http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/brain.gif http://www.zetaminor.com/images/news_pictures/matrix_2_neo.jpg ??????

StockdaleForVeep
08-06-2006, 12:03 AM
Yeah, we shoulda traded pods when he had value for thome and had big frank lead off

rainbow6
08-06-2006, 12:05 AM
Pods has had a good road trip - a few stolen bases, caused a few wild pick-off thows that led to runs, etc.

Those hell-bent to root against him will ignore this and call a home run in the World Series against one the premier closers in baseball "lucky."

Funny stuff.

gosox3072
08-06-2006, 12:38 AM
If a GW HR in the world series is luck......Ill take luck every day:D:

slobes
08-06-2006, 12:56 AM
If a GW HR in the world series is luck......Ill take luck every day:D:
Ozzie always said he'd rather be lucky than good. I'll admit that today he had a bonehead move, but he has been looking like his old self lately.

JorgeFabregas
08-06-2006, 01:03 AM
I might have been imagining things, but he actually got a good jump on the ball late in the game today.

goon
08-06-2006, 01:34 AM
considering he is our best option for leadoff man AND left fielder, you may not have to like him, but you better be pulling for the guy to play well.... he's all we got.


however, i've been thinking the past week or so about how rob would do in the leadoff spot. he doesn't have the speed of podesenik, but he does hustle awfuly hard and is an intelligent base runner. his obp and batting average are similar to scott's, granted with limited AB's, and i don't doubt that he could play left field. maybe something to think about?

thomas35forever
08-06-2006, 01:42 AM
He stole two bases in one trip on the basepaths. Name one other player that's done that this year.

Ol' No. 2
08-06-2006, 03:17 AM
Scott Podsednic made yet another bonehead baserunning play in the first inning when he ran towards home plate on a grounder to third, and got caught. As popular as he was last year, I find it difficult to swallow how so many fans in many of these forums want to give this guy the "Heisman", as in a push out the back door.

Truth is, he ain't helping endear himself to the fan base. He has not been the baserunner of last year, and his defense has been atrocious at times. However, we need to be reminded just how difficult it is to find a "serviceable" lead off hitter. Pods has the tools, and he's shown us that much, to be sure. He has not been consistent this year, and the manner in which the Sox's offense is assembled, if he doesn't get on base, the Sox's winning chances dwindle. But I think some of us need to get off his back, and let him play. He did win a World Series game in walk-off fashion, didn't he?*** are you talking about? He WALKED. Then he bothered Rosario into a wild pitch. Then he stole 3rd. How many other players would have gotten to third base without the benefit of a hit?

DaleJRFan
08-06-2006, 04:23 AM
:?: If Pods is losing fan support for getting caught in a run down, then Jim Thome must really ****ing suck for trying to fool the blue jays defense by rounding the bases on a fly ball without tagging up.

*****.

Grzegorz
08-06-2006, 05:56 AM
I do not understand why there is such disharmony for Scott Podsednik. As Ol' No. 2 mentioned he disrupted the Blue Jay pitcher into a wild pitch before he stole third.

He's the best lead-off man we have on the roster, period. Let's not forget what made the 2005 Chicago White Sox World Series champions; speed, defense, and exceptional pitching.

I refuse to look back on this season; I prefer to look forward to a tremendous baseball race for the AL Central pennant and wild card.

Without Pods, and I'll acknowledge he's struggled this year, you loose a key ingredient in the making of a championship caliber team: a disruptor on the basepaths.

0o0o0
08-06-2006, 07:57 AM
one question...who is Scott Podsednic?

That reminds me...I was watching the game on the Blue Jays station yesterday here in the hotel room in Toronto and all within one AB, Pods was called:
1) Alex Podsednik
2) Alex Podesnik
3) Alex Podynski

:nuts:

I understand not being familiar with some opposing players, but come on.

Craig Grebeck
08-06-2006, 08:19 AM
That was Rosario's third wild pitch of the year. The man has no control whatsoever. He has 6.4 BB/9, and a 1.2 K/BB ratio. I could bother him into poor control.

Pods has been picked off 8 times this year. Enough said.

SoxWillWin
08-06-2006, 08:28 AM
I seem to recall a lot of people wanting Crede ran out of town last year when the sox were.....oh yeah WINNING GAMES.

Yes his defense is subpar and he's made mistakes on the basepaths, most aggresive runners do, but we rarely hear of it because the media is so enthralled with homeruns.

Fact is we need him at the top of this batting order wether you like him or not.

soxinem1
08-06-2006, 09:16 AM
He's obviously not as focused this year in several aspects of his game, mainly his defense, but it's not like Pods hasn't had company. Uribe, for one, has been a bit of a loaf on defense too.

Remember, last years team, except for when Thomas was in the line up, created more runs, and the SB's were necessary. This year, with Thome, Konerko, Dye, Crede, and AJ hitting well all year, the SB has not been utilized as much. Iguchi and the rest are not running either.

My gripe with Pods this year is his defense. His throws suck, his routes suck, and he plays walls like a ballerina, bobbing and weaving all over the place.

I like the guy, but we need him to defend like he can. Some times he looks like a little leaguer out there, and Pods has to play LF better than he has.

Frontman
08-06-2006, 09:17 AM
That was Rosario's third wild pitch of the year. The man has no control whatsoever. He has 6.4 BB/9, and a 1.2 K/BB ratio. I could bother him into poor control.

Pods has been picked off 8 times this year. Enough said.

And Jim Thome has 108 SO. Your point?

TornLabrum
08-06-2006, 09:32 AM
Allow me to be the first to point out that :threadsucks

goofymsfan
08-06-2006, 10:02 AM
Allow me to be the first to point out that :threadsucks

I second this point!

Blob
08-06-2006, 10:06 AM
I second this point!

Let's officially mark it down as man law!

Frontman
08-06-2006, 10:28 AM
Allow me to be the first to point out that :threadsucks

"And there was much rejoicing!"

"Yay!"

Glad someone said it.

Ol' No. 2
08-06-2006, 10:58 AM
That was Rosario's third wild pitch of the year. The man has no control whatsoever. He has 6.4 BB/9, and a 1.2 K/BB ratio. I could bother him into poor control.

Pods has been picked off 8 times this year. Enough said.Yeah, we've all heard this before. They'd be much better off with the future HOF Kevin Youkalis and his fantastic OBP. Is Jeremy Brown available?

JB98
08-06-2006, 12:54 PM
Pods has had a good road trip - a few stolen bases, caused a few wild pick-off thows that led to runs, etc.

Those hell-bent to root against him will ignore this and call a home run in the World Series against one the premier closers in baseball "lucky."

Funny stuff.

But it was a SOLO home run. CORPSEBALL!!!!!

santo=dorf
08-06-2006, 04:52 PM
Those hell-bent to root against him will ignore this and call a home run in the World Series against one the premier closers in baseball "lucky."

Funny stuff.

...and conversely we had people *cough* Thome25 *cough* who essentially gives Pods a free ride on anything because of that home run.

He is starting to turn it around, but he is still a dissapointment and I don't want him on the team next year.

TomParrish79
08-06-2006, 06:05 PM
The only negative feelings I have against Scotty is that I wish I had his wife....that lucky SOB

Chisox003
08-06-2006, 06:07 PM
...and conversely we had people *cough* Thome25 *cough* who essentially gives Pods a free ride on anything because of that home run.

He is starting to turn it around, but he is still a dissapointment and I don't want him on the team next year.
1) And who would you suggest lead off?

2) What's with the sig? So *if* he's gone after this season, you can say I told you so? I don't get it....

Craig Grebeck
08-06-2006, 07:03 PM
Yeah, we've all heard this before. They'd be much better off with the future HOF Kevin Youkalis and his fantastic OBP. Is Jeremy Brown available?
Yes, we've heard it all before. He "bothers" pitchers, bothers them so much that he has been picked off 8 times.

santo=dorf
08-06-2006, 07:36 PM
1) And who would you suggest lead off?

2) What's with the sig? So *if* he's gone after this season, you can say I told you so? I don't get it....

1) Gary Matthews Jr.
2) It actually a reference to a Twins sign they used to hold up against Carlos Lee.

PKalltheway
08-06-2006, 08:42 PM
I'll let Louis Armstrong sum this thread up...
:threadblows:

lizard6king6
08-06-2006, 08:49 PM
[quote=santo=dorf]1) Gary Matthews Jr.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Gary Matthews Jr.. Thats funny, he did well the last time he played in chicago:rolleyes:

lizard6king6
08-06-2006, 08:50 PM
I'll let Louis Armstrong sum this thread up...
:threadblows: Right once again

santo=dorf
08-06-2006, 09:14 PM
[quote=santo=dorf]1) Gary Matthews Jr.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Gary Matthews Jr.. Thats funny, he did well the last time he played in chicago:rolleyes:
He seems to have figure it out now. He would also stop killing us at the plate


Gary's level of Defensive play























Pods' level of Defensive play

HAHHAHAHAH ROTFLMMFAO!!!!@@@111!!!

:rolleyes:

The Dude
08-06-2006, 10:26 PM
:?: If Pods is losing fan support for getting caught in a run down, then Jim Thome must really ****ing suck for trying to fool the blue jays defense by rounding the bases on a fly ball without tagging up.

*****.
*****- Jim Thome also hits 300, walks a **** ton, hits a **** ton of Homers, drives in a **** ton of runs, hustles more, and yes makes a few mental errors but much less than Pods.

Regardless, Pods is off the team after next year plain and simple. I just hope he can relearn how to steal bags, play D, and get on base before then.:o:

samram
08-06-2006, 10:26 PM
...and conversely we had people *cough* Thome25 *cough* who essentially gives Pods a free ride on anything because of that home run.

He is starting to turn it around, but he is still a dissapointment and I don't want him on the team next year.

Well said.

The Dude
08-06-2006, 10:28 PM
And Jim Thome has 108 SO. Your point?

Point is..he's not a leadoff hitter and hits homers. Pods shouldnt strike out that much as a weak hitter and leadoff man!

The Dude
08-06-2006, 10:29 PM
The only negative feelings I have against Scotty is that I wish I had his wife....that lucky SOB

So noodle arm has no negative effect on you?:rolleyes:

Lip Man 1
08-06-2006, 10:54 PM
Ichiro anyone???

:smile:

Lip

QCIASOXFAN
08-06-2006, 11:13 PM
Ichiro anyone???

:smile:

LipThat would be amazing if we could Ichiro.

cgaudin
08-07-2006, 12:35 AM
*****- Jim Thome also hits 300, walks a **** ton, hits a **** ton of Homers, drives in a **** ton of runs, hustles more, and yes makes a few mental errors but much less than Pods.

Regardless, Pods is off the team after next year plain and simple. I just hope he can relearn how to steal bags, play D, and get on base before then.:o:

He also strikes out **** tons! Get off the hallucinogenic Thome kool-aid.

Craig Grebeck
08-07-2006, 01:00 AM
He also strikes out **** tons! Get off the hallucinogenic Thome kool-aid.
And that's offset by the ridiculous numbers he puts up. You take the K's with the huge isoD and fantastic power numbers.

MsSoxVixen22
08-07-2006, 09:16 AM
Ozzie always said he'd rather be lucky than good. I'll admit that today he had a bonehead move, but he has been looking like his old self lately.


Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thought he was getting better! I wish people would get off Pods back. He's gotten better as of late. Why must we always find someone to blame? And as for Pods gettting caught in a pickle, did Cora tell him to go or did Pods go on his own?

TornLabrum
08-07-2006, 09:25 AM
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thought he was getting better! I wish people would get off Pods back. He's gotten better as of late. Why must we always find someone to blame? And as for Pods gettting caught in a pickle, did Cora tell him to go or did Pods go on his own?
Just remember this: If you're gonna be a dark cloud, you've gotta have a scapegoat. Pods is the scapegoat du jour. You may recall that last week it was Vazquez.

MsSoxVixen22
08-07-2006, 09:30 AM
Just remember this: If you're gonna be a dark cloud, you've gotta have a scapegoat. Pods is the scapegoat du jour. You may recall that last week it was Vazquez.


Yeah, I know. It just pisses me off that every week there's a new scapegoat. Hmmm...who will it be this week? :rolleyes: Everyone got on Javy and look how he pitched? He looked good and hopefully he's turning it around

Chisox1500
08-07-2006, 09:55 AM
Originally Posted by TornLabrum
Just remember this: If you're gonna be a dark cloud, you've gotta have a scapegoat. Pods is the scapegoat du jour. You may recall that last week it was Vazquez.


Then I guess Ozzie must be a Darkcloud for telling Pods to work on his defense. And Kenny must be one for trying to replace Pods.

Vazquez and Pods are criticized because of poor performance. Perhaps some of what is written goes overboard because the fans care and are pissed off by inconsistent performances, but calling Pods out hardly makes one a "darkcloud" - a title thrown about so often that it is laughable.

jenn2080
08-07-2006, 09:57 AM
I dont feel that Pods and Vazquez are scape goats. I feel that the complaining about the two are very valid. They are not going out there and playing they way people expect and the coaching for that matter. Pods has made quite a bit of errors and just has not been playing well stats or no stats. Vazquez has pitched like **** for quite some time and just because he has one good game doesnt mean I am suppose be whistlin dixie because of it. If Pods is such the scape goat and Vazquez then why is it a recoccuring topic. You dont hear anyone complaining about Gooch, Dye, AJ, Crede, or Paulie. Why because they play up to standards? They are not making crazy errors or giving up a 100 runs or misjudging a fly ball...the list goes on. Sure they have off days but all in all they are still going out there day in and day out and do play above and beyond.

soxfan13
08-07-2006, 10:32 AM
I dont feel that Pods and Vazquez are scape goats. I feel that the complaining about the two are very valid. They are not going out there and playing they way people expect and the coaching for that matter. Pods has made quite a bit of errors and just has not been playing well stats or no stats. Vazquez has pitched like **** for quite some time and just because he has one good game doesnt mean I am suppose be whistlin dixie because of it. If Pods is such the scape goat and Vazquez then why is it a recoccuring topic. You dont hear anyone complaining about Gooch, Dye, AJ, Crede, or Paulie. Why because they play up to standards? They are not making crazy errors or giving up a 100 runs or misjudging a fly ball...the list goes on. Sure they have off days but all in all they are still going out there day in and day out and do play above and beyond.


You really cant complain about either of the 2. If you look at both of their career numbers they are right there. Vazquez was a below .500 pitcher before he came here with a 4.30 ERA. Right now he is 10-5 with a 5.10 ERA. Yes he is alittle higher then his career ERA but he is our number 5 starter.

As for Pods he is a career .279 hitter with OBP 0f .345. Right now hes hitting .265 and OBP of .341 so again he is right were he always is.

When did Vazquez become a 20 game winner and Pods become a .350 hitter and constant Gold Glover in Sox fans eyes? I was just wondering, because alot of fans are holding them to these standards now.

SoxWillWin
08-07-2006, 10:41 AM
Then I guess Ozzie must be a Darkcloud for telling Pods to work on his defense. And Kenny must be one for trying to replace Pods.

Vazquez and Pods are criticized because of poor performance. Perhaps some of what is written goes overboard because the fans care and are pissed off by inconsistent performances, but calling Pods out hardly makes one a "darkcloud" - a title thrown about so often that it is laughable.
As fans, yes we are allowed to get upset at a bad performance. We're allowed to piss moan and complain about bad performances. But when fans start saying things like "I don't want him on the team next year" or "we should've traded him for BLAH BLAH BLAH" that's when my ears turn off. We are fans and as fans we'd like to think that we can run a team if we had the opportunity, but WE CAN'T. KW could have made a move to do something about Pods and Vazquez, but he didn't.

KW is the man making the decisions let him worry about it. So let's sit back and complain about a bad performance, but if people want to play "couch potato general manager" why don't you go apply when the next GM spot opens up.

Ol' No. 2
08-07-2006, 10:46 AM
Yes, we've heard it all before. He "bothers" pitchers, bothers them so much that he has been picked off 8 times.Right. Because that's the only thing that matters.:rolleyes:

samram
08-07-2006, 10:54 AM
When did Vazquez become a 20 game winner and Pods become a .350 hitter and constant Gold Glover in Sox fans eyes? I was just wondering, because alot of fans are holding them to these standards now.

I'm not sure who thinks this of either guy. I thought Vazquez would be better, but I was wrong (hopefully, Satruday's start turns him around). As for Pods, I've never thought of him as either a .350 hitter or a Gold Glover winner, far from it. I hold the Sox to a World Series standard and Pods, in my opinion, isn't contributing very much to reaching that standard.

soxfan13
08-07-2006, 11:59 AM
I'm not sure who thinks this of either guy. I thought Vazquez would be better, but I was wrong (hopefully, Satruday's start turns him around). As for Pods, I've never thought of him as either a .350 hitter or a Gold Glover winner, far from it. I hold the Sox to a World Series standard and Pods, in my opinion, isn't contributing very much to reaching that standard.

The way people keep bashing these guys you would think they are those type of players. All I am saying they are performing like they have throughout their careers and all of the sudden its not good enough. I too, thought that Coop would be able to harness Vazquezs talent and make him a 15-18 consistent winner. He does have that talent, but its not working out that way. Saturdays game hopefully, is the game that pushes him in the right direction, and he goes on a nice run.

The Dude
08-07-2006, 12:31 PM
He also strikes out **** tons! Get off the hallucinogenic Thome kool-aid.
For the last time for those hard of hearing & baseballchallenged..... HIGH HOME RUN HITTERS TEND TO STRIKE OUT A **** TON BUT MAKE UP FOR IT WITH THE HOME RUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Dude
08-07-2006, 12:36 PM
Yeah, I know. It just pisses me off that every week there's a new scapegoat. Hmmm...who will it be this week? :rolleyes: Everyone got on Javy and look how he pitched? He looked good and hopefully he's turning it around

Pods is no scapegoat, he's been a below average player for most of his career. Low BA, weak arm, bad D, low OBP, high K rate for leadoff hitter, etc.

Vazquez has great stuff and just his problem seems to be mostly mental. The Vaz haters have been on him since he lost his no-hitter in the 8th inning early in the season. I'd hardly compare the two and I'd just like to see us upgrade the LF/leadoff position.

samram
08-07-2006, 01:10 PM
The way people keep bashing these guys you would think they are those type of players. All I am saying they are performing like they have throughout their careers and all of the sudden its not good enough. I too, thought that Coop would be able to harness Vazquezs talent and make him a 15-18 consistent winner. He does have that talent, but its not working out that way. Saturdays game hopefully, is the game that pushes him in the right direction, and he goes on a nice run.
I would say the perception of those who don't like Pods as much is that there are a lot of people who overlook Scott's flaws because he hit a homer in game 2 of the WS last year and he reminds them of an old-school leadoff hitter, even though he is not a fundamentally sound player.

slobes
08-07-2006, 01:20 PM
Last year, before he got hurt, Pods was the quintessential leadoff hitter for us. Got on base, stole bases, annoyed the hell out of pitchers. It's plain to see that Pods is not doing that stuff to the same extent as he was doing it last year, but he's still #5 in stolen bases in the AL right now. I'm afraid some of us think that the first-half Pods of 2005 is the Pods that will always be around from now on. This is not true. Last year Pods was an All-Star; while I voted for him to a point of nausea and I got immense goosebumps when they announced that he had won the vote, he is not going to be a consistent All-Star. Right now, he's the best leadoff man on the team, no doubt. He's more than good enough to start in LF for us with the team that we have.

Ol' No. 2
08-07-2006, 01:29 PM
Pods is no scapegoat, he's been a below average player for most of his career. Low BA, weak arm, bad D, low OBP, high K rate for leadoff hitter, etc.

Vazquez has great stuff and just his problem seems to be mostly mental. The Vaz haters have been on him since he lost his no-hitter in the 8th inning early in the season. I'd hardly compare the two and I'd just like to see us upgrade the LF/leadoff position.Who cares about BA? For a leadoff hitter, OBP is much more important, and his is about average for leadoff hitters. K rate also doesn't matter much since they're usually replacing groundouts or other non-productive outs anyway. He's still 5th in the AL in SB, only one behind everyone's hearthrob, Carl Crawford. Compared with the four players ahead of him in SB, his OBP is about equal to Crawford and better than Figgins and Patterson.

Seriously, this Pods scapegoating is getting pretty absurd. No one ever said he was Rickey Henderson. But compared to the other leadoff hitters in the league in the categories that matter, he's above average.

JB98
08-07-2006, 01:31 PM
You really cant complain about either of the 2. If you look at both of their career numbers they are right there. Vazquez was a below .500 pitcher before he came here with a 4.30 ERA. Right now he is 10-5 with a 5.10 ERA. Yes he is alittle higher then his career ERA but he is our number 5 starter.

As for Pods he is a career .279 hitter with OBP 0f .345. Right now hes hitting .265 and OBP of .341 so again he is right were he always is.

When did Vazquez become a 20 game winner and Pods become a .350 hitter and constant Gold Glover in Sox fans eyes? I was just wondering, because alot of fans are holding them to these standards now.

Bingo! Vazquez has been an inconsistent head case his whole career. The White Sox are his fourth team in the last four years. When a player jumps from team to team like that, there are reasons for it. I wasn't a fan of the Vazquez trade, and my concerns about him have proven to be true. His numbers this year are mediocre and consistent with what he's done previously in his career. The ERA is a little higher than his career ERA, but you have to remember that he's spent the majority of his career in the National League.

As for Pods, I'm disappointed in his defense. Ozzie seems to be as well, since he is playing Mackowiak in LF during late innings when the Sox have the lead. A former CF should be able to handle LF. Scott was OK defensively last year. This season, he has been subpar. Offensively, I think Pods is doing about what I expected.

ewokpelts
08-07-2006, 01:33 PM
Scott Podsednic made yet another bonehead baserunning play in the first inning when he ran towards home plate on a grounder to third, and got caught. As popular as he was last year, I find it difficult to swallow how so many fans in many of these forums want to give this guy the "Heisman", as in a push out the back door.

Truth is, he ain't helping endear himself to the fan base. He has not been the baserunner of last year, and his defense has been atrocious at times. However, we need to be reminded just how difficult it is to find a "serviceable" lead off hitter. Pods has the tools, and he's shown us that much, to be sure. He has not been consistent this year, and the manner in which the Sox's offense is assembled, if he doesn't get on base, the Sox's winning chances dwindle. But I think some of us need to get off his back, and let him play. He did win a World Series game in walk-off fashion, didn't he?#1 selling sox player jersey, according to the league.

JB98
08-07-2006, 01:35 PM
#1 selling sox player jersey, according to the league.

I think the ladies love Pods. He's my sister's favorite player.

jenn2080
08-07-2006, 01:36 PM
#1 selling sox player jersey, according to the league.


women want to sleep with him and men want to be him. :wink:

slobes
08-07-2006, 01:38 PM
#1 selling sox player jersey, according to the league.

That's why we can't get rid of him! Imagine all the money we would lose from not selling his jerseys anymore.

The Dude
08-07-2006, 01:41 PM
#1 selling sox player jersey, according to the league.

Yes, I do see many females wearing that #22 and they sure arent Valentin-stache!:tongue:

jenn2080
08-07-2006, 01:49 PM
I have 2 and I have not wore it in months. Im not happy with Pods.

The Dude
08-07-2006, 02:08 PM
Who cares about BA? For a leadoff hitter, OBP is much more important, and his is about average for leadoff hitters. K rate also doesn't matter much since they're usually replacing groundouts or other non-productive outs anyway. He's still 5th in the AL in SB, only one behind everyone's hearthrob, Carl Crawford. Compared with the four players ahead of him in SB, his OBP is about equal to Crawford and better than Figgins and Patterson.

Seriously, this Pods scapegoating is getting pretty absurd. No one ever said he was Rickey Henderson. But compared to the other leadoff hitters in the league in the categories that matter, he's above average.

Above Average? You want OBP, you got it!

Stats as of August 7th 2006

AL OBP NUMBERS

1.) Blue Jays - Johnson OBP = .419
2.) Red Sox - Youkilis OBP = .398
3.) Mariners - Ichiro OBP = .386
4.) Indians - Sizemore OBP = .379
5.) Royals - DeJesus OBP = .371
6.) Rangers - Matthews OBP = .369
7.) Tigers - Granderson OBP = .366
8.) Orioles - Roberts OBP = .366
9.) Yankees - Damon OBP = .363
10.) A's - Kendall OBP = .354
11.) Rays - Crawford OBP = .350
12.) Twins - Stewart OBP = .347
13.) White Sox - Pods OBP= .342
14.) Angels - Figgins OBP = .325


ABOVE AVERAGE??? Unless the definition of average changed since I wrote this.

Pods = 13 of 14 among AL OBP leadoff hitters:o:

May stats never get in the way of a true WSI argument!:rolleyes:

MsSoxVixen22
08-07-2006, 02:36 PM
Who cares about BA? For a leadoff hitter, OBP is much more important, and his is about average for leadoff hitters. K rate also doesn't matter much since they're usually replacing groundouts or other non-productive outs anyway. He's still 5th in the AL in SB, only one behind everyone's hearthrob, Carl Crawford. Compared with the four players ahead of him in SB, his OBP is about equal to Crawford and better than Figgins and Patterson.

Seriously, this Pods scapegoating is getting pretty absurd. No one ever said he was Rickey Henderson. But compared to the other leadoff hitters in the league in the categories that matter, he's above average.


That's what I was trying to say! Everyone's going to make a head up ass play now and then. But I think this team is getting better. The pitching is showing signs of improvement. I'm buy now means saying Javy will now be lights out from now on-just that he showed signs of getting better. And hey I'd rather have Pods out there than ****ing Ozuna!

samram
08-07-2006, 02:44 PM
And hey I'd rather have Pods out there than ****ing Ozuna!

Well, the point isn't that Pods is better than Pablo- Pablo's a nice bench player, but he's not a good player by any means. So we know Pods is better than Pablo, but what we want is someone better than Pods to lead off and play LF. Obviously, that's not going to happen this year, but for next year, I think it's something KW will seriously look into.

Ol' No. 2
08-07-2006, 02:49 PM
Above Average? You want OBP, you got it!

Stats as of August 7th 2006

AL OBP NUMBERS

1.) Blue Jays - Johnson OBP = .419
2.) Red Sox - Youkilis OBP = .398
3.) Mariners - Ichiro OBP = .386
4.) Indians - Sizemore OBP = .379
5.) Royals - DeJesus OBP = .371
6.) Rangers - Matthews OBP = .369
7.) Tigers - Granderson OBP = .366
8.) Orioles - Roberts OBP = .366
9.) Yankees - Damon OBP = .363
10.) A's - Kendall OBP = .354
11.) Rays - Crawford OBP = .350
12.) Twins - Stewart OBP = .347
13.) White Sox - Pods OBP= .342
14.) Angels - Figgins OBP = .325


ABOVE AVERAGE??? Unless the definition of average changed since I wrote this.

Pods = 13 of 14 among AL OBP leadoff hitters:o:

May stats never get in the way of a true WSI argument!:rolleyes:Actually, what I said was "about average" in OBP, not "above average". May accurate quotes never get in the way of a true WSI argument.:wink:

I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but Pods' OBP last year was .351 and he's been within a small margin around this for most of the year until a very recent dip. Numbers will go up and down as part of the normal variations, and that's true of any player. When I looked at the rankings a few weeks ago, I believe he was about 9th, which is in the middle third, and that's a pretty good operational definition of "about average".

But the differences really are pretty tiny, and it's the differences rather than the absolute rankings which really matter. Which would you rather have, in 13th place 10 pts below the average or in 9th place 30 pts below the average? 10 pts works out to getting on base one additional time per month. He will probably finish the year close to last years' .351. That hardly qualifies as "low" (that is the exact word you used), and is more than made up for in other qualities. Only two of those leadoff hitters have both a higher OBP and more steals. He's also over 4 PIT/PA, which is an often overlooked category for leadoff hitters. I'll bet that number ranks pretty high.

So when you look at everything and not just one thing, I think you'll find he still above average.

maurice
08-07-2006, 02:51 PM
To the BB / Youkalis-as-leadoff-man fan club:

Youkalis no longer leads off for the Boston Red Sox. They irrationally replaced him in that role with a much, much faster player who has a much, much lower OBP.

Stupid Red Sox.

Ol' No. 2
08-07-2006, 02:53 PM
To the BB / Youkalis-as-leadoff-man fan club:

Youkalis no longer leads off for the Boston Red Sox. They irrationally replaced him in that role with a much, much faster player with a lower OBP.

Stupid Red Sox.He probably has a higher isoFOOZIX.

Chez
08-07-2006, 02:59 PM
Yes, I do see many females wearing that #22 and they sure arent Valentin-stache!:tongue:

Maybe Buddy Bradford? :D:

maurice
08-07-2006, 03:00 PM
So when you look at everything and not just one thing, I think you'll find he still above average.

This whole argument is a red herring. In this post-trade-deadline world, the relevant issue is that he's better than any potential in-house replacement. (For the OBP-obsessed, Podsednik's career OBP > Ozuna or Mackowiak's career OBP. Podsednik's 2006 OBP is indicative of his level of ability, while Ozuna and Mackowiak's current 2006 numbers are a statistical anomoly.) It doesn't matter if you hate Podsednik, because you're stuck with him for the time being. Damn.

Maybe KW will make a move this offseason. In the meanwhile, this argument is academic.

The Dude
08-07-2006, 03:00 PM
Actually, what I said was "about average" in OBP, not "above average". May accurate quotes never get in the way of a true WSI argument.:wink:

About average/above average, now your'e just splitting hairs! :tongue:

Well anyways, he's not even at the average spot anymore and without his high SB number of the first half of last season...which numbers can you show me that proves he's above the average mark?

I say above average (as I misquoted you earlier) because we are a World Series contending team and can't afford to have certain busted legs slow us down on our chance for a second title this year or even next year. Point being, he would be an acceptable player and leadoff man for a lesser club, but being simply average in that category doesn't help the cause.

The Dude
08-07-2006, 03:02 PM
To the BB / Youkalis-as-leadoff-man fan club:

Youkalis no longer leads off for the Boston Red Sox. They irrationally replaced him in that role with a much, much faster player who has a much, much lower OBP.

Stupid Red Sox.
Note: I used Youkilis in the stats because he's been their leadoff man more than anyone on the team.
Also note: I didnt say OBP was the most important key in determining a leadoff man.

The Dude
08-07-2006, 03:06 PM
This whole argument is a red herring. In this post-trade-deadline world, the relevant issue is that he's better than any potential in-house replacement. (For the OBP-obsessed, Podsednik's career OBP > Ozuna or Mackowiak's career OBP. Podsednik's 2006 OBP is indicative of his level of ability, while Ozuna and Mackowiak's current 2006 numbers are a statistical anomoly.) It doesn't matter if you hate Podsednik, because you're stuck with him for the time being. Damn.

Maybe KW will make a move this offseason. In the meanwhile, this argument is academic.
Every argument on WSI is academic because we the fans can't actually do a damn thing about it since we're not in charge! We discuss it because it's fun to go back and forth on topic with posters we may disagree with. Sorry if it seems I'm giving a message board 101 but I had to do it!:tongue:

I do realize we're stuck with Pods for better or worse but it doesn't mean I can't reply to a thread discussing Pods losing fan support. I hope the man goes on a tear and proves me wrong for wanting an upgrade, but I just dont think that will be possible.

Ol' No. 2
08-07-2006, 03:09 PM
About average/above average, now your'e just splitting hairs! :tongue:

Well anyways, he's not even at the average spot anymore and without his high SB number of the first half of last season...which numbers can you show me that proves he's above the average mark?

I say above average (as I misquoted you earlier) because we are a World Series contending team and can't afford to have certain busted legs slow us down on our chance for a second title this year or even next year. Point being, he would be an acceptable player and leadoff man for a lesser club, but being simply average in that category doesn't help the cause.Umm...He's currently 5th in the AL in stolen bases, only a few behind those in front of him. That may be down from last year, but "busted legs"???:?: Doesn't that sound like just a teensey bit of an exaggeration?

maurice
08-07-2006, 03:17 PM
Every argument on WSI is academic because we the fans can't actually do a damn thing about it since we're not in charge!

But this argument is DOUBLY academic because NOBODY can do anything about it. Even KW's hands are tied.

it doesn't mean I can't reply to a thread discussing Pods losing fan support.

:?: Who told you you shouldn't reply to this thread?!?

I hope the man goes on a tear and proves me wrong for wanting an upgrade, but I just dont think that will be possible.

It's certainly POSSIBLE, though it may be unlikely. However, it's defintely unnecessary. The Sox have had no problem scoring runs this year with Podsednik leading off. The Sox had no problem winning the most games in the AL and then the WS with Podsednik leading off last year. (2006: .342 OBP, .382 SLG, 71% SB%; 2005: .351 OBP, .349 SLG, 72% SB%.) That doesn't make him a great leadoff hitter, but he's certainly good enough for the time being. The main problem this season has been pitching.

The Dude
08-07-2006, 03:19 PM
Umm...He's currently 5th in the AL in stolen bases, only a few behind those in front of him. That may be down from last year, but "busted legs"???:?: Doesn't that sound like just a teensey bit of an exaggeration?

Well by busted leg, I wasnt referring to his actual legs, although they have lost a step. I was refering to the entire Sox team with Pods as a part of it.
You see, the Chicago White Sox team is like a centipede. In order for it to work, all the legs must be moving in the same direction. Pods, however, is like a busted leg.:tongue:

cgaudin
08-07-2006, 03:23 PM
For the last time for those hard of hearing & baseballchallenged..... HIGH HOME RUN HITTERS TEND TO STRIKE OUT A **** TON BUT MAKE UP FOR IT WITH THE HOME RUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is No one in baseball at the three hitter spot that strikes out at the rate of 30%. The closest one is Derek Lee at 24%. 'Nuff said. Thome is great, just not a 3 hitter.

JB98
08-07-2006, 03:28 PM
Above Average? You want OBP, you got it!

Stats as of August 7th 2006

AL OBP NUMBERS

1.) Blue Jays - Johnson OBP = .419
2.) Red Sox - Youkilis OBP = .398
3.) Mariners - Ichiro OBP = .386
4.) Indians - Sizemore OBP = .379
5.) Royals - DeJesus OBP = .371
6.) Rangers - Matthews OBP = .369
7.) Tigers - Granderson OBP = .366
8.) Orioles - Roberts OBP = .366
9.) Yankees - Damon OBP = .363
10.) A's - Kendall OBP = .354
11.) Rays - Crawford OBP = .350
12.) Twins - Stewart OBP = .347
13.) White Sox - Pods OBP= .342
14.) Angels - Figgins OBP = .325


ABOVE AVERAGE??? Unless the definition of average changed since I wrote this.

Pods = 13 of 14 among AL OBP leadoff hitters:o:

May stats never get in the way of a true WSI argument!:rolleyes:

I find it amusing that a lot of people (not you specifically, but some here) have advocated the idea of replacing Pods with Chone Figgins. As it turns out, Figgins has the worst OBP of any leadoff hitter in the league. :D:

I think a lot of WSI posters (myself included) think this Sox team is underachieving. Some are blaming Pods. Others want Dye moved up in the batting order and Thome and Konerko dropped down a notch.

What we're all ignoring is, this Sox team leads the league in home runs. It has ranked in the top three in the league in runs scored, team batting average and batting average with RISP nearly all year. I can't emphasize this enough: OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION IS NOT OUR PROBLEM. We are scoring more than enough runs.

We can call for Ozzie to juggle the batting order and bitch about our leadoff hitter all we want. But none of that is going to make a damn bit a difference until Contreras, Buehrle, Vazquez and Garcia stop giving up big innings, start pitching deeper into games and start giving us some damn consistency on the mound.

I wish Pods would do a better job in LF, but his offense is not a concern for me. In fact, I'm not the least bit concerned about anyone's offense right now.

The Dude
08-07-2006, 03:33 PM
I find it amusing that a lot of people (not you specifically, but some here) have advocated the idea of replacing Pods with Chone Figgins. As it turns out, Figgins has the worst OBP of any leadoff hitter in the league. :D:
Yes it is and I for one haven't been high on Chone, but I was still shocked when I went through the OBP of the AL leadoff men to see how low his was this season!:o:

Ol' No. 2
08-07-2006, 03:51 PM
Well by busted leg, I wasnt referring to his actual legs, although they have lost a step. I was refering to the entire Sox team with Pods as a part of it.
You see, the Chicago White Sox team is like a centipede. In order for it to work, all the legs must be moving in the same direction. Pods, however, is like a busted leg.:tongue:I don't think he's lost a step at all. His SB% is the same as last year. He's not running as much, but I think that's a decision from the top. Last year they had to have him running to generate offense. This year they don't need that as much. With big boppers behind him, it makes less sense to risk trying to steal second. I think that's a mistake. We've seen what happens when the 3-4-5 hitters go cold. They generate lots of offense on average, but they did in 2004, too. The problem is consistency. The advantage of having a running game is that it can generate runs when the 3-4-5 hitters are not hitting. But you can't just turn it on and off like a light switch.

Jurr
08-07-2006, 04:22 PM
I don't think he's lost a step at all. His SB% is the same as last year. He's not running as much, but I think that's a decision from the top. Last year they had to have him running to generate offense. This year they don't need that as much. With big boppers behind him, it makes less sense to risk trying to steal second. I think that's a mistake. We've seen what happens when the 3-4-5 hitters go cold. They generate lots of offense on average, but they did in 2004, too. The problem is consistency. The advantage of having a running game is that it can generate runs when the 3-4-5 hitters are not hitting. But you can't just turn it on and off like a light switch.
Ding ding ding....we have a winner. Tell him what he's won!!!!!!!!!

spiffie
08-07-2006, 04:53 PM
I don't think he's lost a step at all. His SB% is the same as last year. He's not running as much, but I think that's a decision from the top. Last year they had to have him running to generate offense. This year they don't need that as much. With big boppers behind him, it makes less sense to risk trying to steal second. I think that's a mistake. We've seen what happens when the 3-4-5 hitters go cold. They generate lots of offense on average, but they did in 2004, too. The problem is consistency. The advantage of having a running game is that it can generate runs when the 3-4-5 hitters are not hitting. But you can't just turn it on and off like a light switch.
The answer to this of course is to trade Thome and Dye for guys who hit less pesky home runs. If there's a home run to be hit, it's going to be from the #4 spot or not hit at all!

cgaudin
08-07-2006, 06:19 PM
I don't think he's lost a step at all. His SB% is the same as last year. He's not running as much, but I think that's a decision from the top. Last year they had to have him running to generate offense. This year they don't need that as much. With big boppers behind him, it makes less sense to risk trying to steal second. I think that's a mistake. We've seen what happens when the 3-4-5 hitters go cold. They generate lots of offense on average, but they did in 2004, too. The problem is consistency. The advantage of having a running game is that it can generate runs when the 3-4-5 hitters are not hitting. But you can't just turn it on and off like a light switch.
You are right on the money. I've been saying this same thing for a while. Pods has taken a beating this year from many fans because of the DESIGNED offensive tempo change this year from last year. It has made a HUGE difference in the Sox ability (or rather, inability) to score runs without the benefit of the long ball.

In the last week, however, I've noticed a slight change in tempo. They are ACTUALLY trying to move runners along, and Pods has been more vigorous on the bases. The key is Gooch being able to move Pods over. Check this thread:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=76599

cgaudin
08-07-2006, 06:23 PM
Sorry for the rant on our offensive "woes", people. I keep forgeting that the pitching is the true culprit for having played less-than-average baseball last month.

Ol' No. 2
08-07-2006, 06:33 PM
Sorry for the rant on our offensive "woes", people. I keep forgeting that the pitching is the true culprit for having played less-than-average baseball last month.By and large, that's true, but if you look back over the games since the break, there are more than a few losses where the pitching did its job but the offense disappeared. From July 19-22 (4 straight losses), they scored 2, 1, 3, and 1 runs. Three of those were winnable if the offense had done its job.

santo=dorf
08-07-2006, 06:37 PM
Who cares about BA? For a leadoff hitter, OBP is much more important, and his is about average for leadoff hitters. K rate also doesn't matter much since they're usually replacing groundouts or other non-productive outs anyway. He's still 5th in the AL in SB, only one behind everyone's hearthrob, Carl Crawford. Compared with the four players ahead of him in SB, his OBP is about equal to Crawford and better than Figgins and Patterson.

Seriously, this Pods scapegoating is getting pretty absurd. No one ever said he was Rickey Henderson. But compared to the other leadoff hitters in the league in the categories that matter, he's above average.
GMAB. K's don't matter for a speedy guy? All we hear is about how is if he puts the ball in play, he has a much better chance of most guys because he can reach first.

You're also full of **** by saying "OBP is much more important, and his is about average for leadoff hitters."
According to ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=109&league=mlb&season=2006&seasonType=2&sort=onBasePct&type=reg&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all), for qualified players, Pods is 15th out of 19 in OBP% batting in the #1 spot. Nowhere near the "average" in which you claim.
SB% with the same guys: He's 14th out of 19
Caught Stealing: He's 1st out of 19
Stolen bases: He's 6th out of 19.

"above average leadoff hitter," to quote the immortal Lee Elia "MY ****ING ASS!!!!"

cgaudin
08-07-2006, 06:53 PM
By and large, that's true, but if you look back over the games since the break, there are more than a few losses where the pitching did its job but the offense disappeared. From July 19-22 (4 straight losses), they scored 2, 1, 3, and 1 runs. Three of those were winnable if the offense had done its job.

Very good point.

ajismyhero
08-07-2006, 06:59 PM
By and large, that's true, but if you look back over the games since the break, there are more than a few losses where the pitching did its job but the offense disappeared. From July 19-22 (4 straight losses), they scored 2, 1, 3, and 1 runs. Three of those were winnable if the offense had done its job.

Stat people - how many of those games that we lost was Pods stranded on base by the Gooch, Thome, and Konerko? You may find quite a bit. I feel like even when he does get on base he either sits on first - or possibly second.

Craig Grebeck
08-07-2006, 07:09 PM
My problem with Pods is that I do not believe that the "havoc" he causes outweighs all the outs he runs into. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he causes anything other than unnecessary outs.

santo=dorf
08-07-2006, 07:22 PM
Stat people - how many of those games that we lost was Pods stranded on base by the Gooch, Thome, and Konerko? You may find quite a bit. I feel like even when he does get on base he either sits on first - or possibly second.
Let's see
July 19th. Pods was 0-4
July 20th. Pods was 0-1
July 21th. Pods was 2-4, 1 HBP, no runs scored. Thome homered in the first when Pods wasn't on. Pods doubled with one out, Gooch struck out, Thome walked, Konerko fouled out. Pods singled in the 5th, but AJ was thrown out at home to end the inning. NO LOB. In the 7th, he grounded out. In the 9th he was hit by a pitch with two outs, and then Iguchi grounded out to end the game. July 22nd. Pods was 0-2
Conclusion: Iguchi left Pods on base twice, Konerko left him on once, and Thome none over that 4 game span.
You and Ol' #2 need to find a new excuse to try and spin Pods' crappy performance this year.

How the hell are you going to expect Gooch, Thome, and/or Konerko to knock him in if he has a BA of .182 and OBP of .250? (Hey! I'm using the sample sample size as you and old #2)

StatHead21
08-07-2006, 07:49 PM
Above Average? You want OBP, you got it!

Stats as of August 7th 2006

AL OBP NUMBERS

1.) Blue Jays - Johnson OBP = .419
2.) Red Sox - Youkilis OBP = .398
3.) Mariners - Ichiro OBP = .386
4.) Indians - Sizemore OBP = .379
5.) Royals - DeJesus OBP = .371
6.) Rangers - Matthews OBP = .369
7.) Tigers - Granderson OBP = .366
8.) Orioles - Roberts OBP = .366
9.) Yankees - Damon OBP = .363
10.) A's - Kendall OBP = .354
11.) Rays - Crawford OBP = .350
12.) Twins - Stewart OBP = .347
13.) White Sox - Pods OBP= .342
14.) Angels - Figgins OBP = .325


ABOVE AVERAGE??? Unless the definition of average changed since I wrote this.

Pods = 13 of 14 among AL OBP leadoff hitters:o:

May stats never get in the way of a true WSI argument!:rolleyes:

Funny most people would consider Pods and Figgins the top leadoff men in the AL because of speed. Speed is useless unless you get on base to use it. Pods would be a hell of a bench player though.

maurice
08-07-2006, 08:02 PM
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he causes anything other than unnecessary outs.

Sure there is:
- It is apparent that a successful SB by Podsednik sometimes causes a run to score by advancing him into scoring position or to 3B with less than 2 outs. In these cases, absent the SB, the run would not have scored. It's hard to say exactly how often this happens, but it's foolish to suggest that it never happens.
- There is plenty of evidence that Podsednik has caused certain pitchers to throw away a rushed pickoff throw (this doesn't happen to Konerko), advancing Podsednik from 1B to 2B (or even 3B) without receiving credit for a SB. I don't know if anybody keeps track of this, but they should.
- Running also sometimes causes the catcher to throw the ball into CF, advancing the runner another base (sometimes home), though the runner receives credit for only 1 SB. This is yet another problem with the way baserunning stats typically are recorded.
- Running also sometimes allows Podsednik to beat out a grounder that would have been a double play / fielder's choice, or to advance an extra base when the batter puts the pitch into play. While this also sometimes results in a lineout double-play, that is much less common. Again, I'm not aware of any stat measuring this effect.
- It also has been argued that a player like Podsednik distracts a pitcher and increases the chances that a following batter will receive a cookie or a BB. The effect on a distracted pitcher is less tangible and thus probably not quantifiable, but there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that this happens to some pitchers.
- Finally, all other things being equal, it is obvious that a faster player is better than a slower player. SB aside, the faster player is more likely to advance from 1B to 3B on a single, less likely to slow down a baserunner behind him on an extra-base hit, etc.

Unfortunately, none of these things are apparent to folks who don't watch games and, since there currently is no way of accurately valuing them through stats, the BB mindset dictates that they must be irrelevant.
:rolleyes:

More reasonable stat-heads generally will acknowledge that a SB% > X is beneficial, though the problem measuring the benefits of a SB makes any effort to precisely determine X ultimately futile.

StatHead21
08-07-2006, 08:27 PM
Sure there is:
- It is apparent that a successful SB by Podsednik sometimes causes a run to score by advancing him into scoring position or to 3B with less than 2 outs. In these cases, absent the SB, the run would not have scored. It's hard to say exactly how often this happens, but it's foolish to suggest that it never happens.
- There is plenty of evidence that Podsednik has caused certain pitchers to throw away a rushed pickoff throw (this doesn't happen to Konerko), advancing Podsednik from 1B to 2B (or even 3B) without receiving credit for a SB. I don't know if anybody keeps track of this, but they should.
- Running also sometimes causes the catcher to throw the ball into CF, advancing the runner another base (sometimes home), though the runner receives credit for only 1 SB. This is yet another problem with the way baserunning stats typically are recorded.
- Running also sometimes allows Podsednik to beat out a grounder that would have been a double play / fielder's choice, or to advance an extra base when the batter puts the pitch into play. While this also sometimes results in a lineout double-play, that is much less common. Again, I'm not aware of any stat measuring this effect.
- It also has been argued that a player like Podsednik distracts a pitcher and increases the chances that a following batter will receive a cookie or a BB. The effect on a distracted pitcher is less tangible and thus probably not quantifiable, but there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that this happens to some pitchers.
- Finally, all other things being equal, it is obvious that a faster player is better than a slower player. SB aside, the faster player is more likely to advance from 1B to 3B on a single, less likely to slow down a baserunner behind him on an extra-base hit, etc.

Unfortunately, none of these things are apparent to folks who don't watch games and, since there currently is no way of accurately valuing them through stats, the BB mindset dictates that they must be irrelevant.
:rolleyes:

More reasonable stat-heads generally will acknowledge that a SB% > X is beneficial, though the problem measuring the benefits of a SB makes any effort to precisely determine X ultimately futile.
This is all true, but when Pods doesn't get on base he's just a bad LFer with a weak arm. He's only been able to create havoc 104 times (# of times he's been on base w/out runners in front of him. He's stolen 32/45 bases yet he's still scored 74 runs. This also poses a point that he is essentially useless with runners in front of him. Point being he'd be more valuable as a pinch runner/spot starter. Think Dave Roberts.

Craig Grebeck
08-07-2006, 08:34 PM
This is all true, but when Pods doesn't get on base he's just a bad LFer with a weak arm. He's only been able to create havoc 104 times (# of times he's been on base w/out runners in front of him. He's stolen 32/45 bases yet he's still scored 74 runs. This also poses a point that he is essentially useless with runners in front of him. Point being he'd be more valuable as a pinch runner/spot starter. Think Dave Roberts.
Ironically, Roberts has been miles ahead of Pods in every category this season.

Frontman
08-07-2006, 10:32 PM
Point is..he's not a leadoff hitter and hits homers. Pods shouldnt strike out that much as a weak hitter and leadoff man!

But, using your logic, shouldn't one of our best hitters not be leading the team in strike outs? Thome is. Granted, he is also leading in HR. If you look at any one stat, you can skew the results to support any argument. Pods has 38 fewer strike outs to Thome. Anyone here going to say Pods is a better hitter than Big Jim?

So he's been picked off 8 times. He's also striking out a lot less than Thome.

Pods OBP is just about the same for the season as it is for his career. He's made some bonehead plays, but to start the thread "Pods is loosing fan support," is just looking to get a conversation started, but one that isn't going to go anywhere.

cgaudin
08-07-2006, 10:40 PM
But, using your logic, shouldn't one of our best hitters not be leading the team in strike outs? Thome is. Granted, he is also leading in HR. If you look at any one stat, you can skew the results to support any argument. Pods has 38 fewer strike outs to Thome. Anyone here going to say Pods is a better hitter than Big Jim?

So he's been picked off 8 times. He's also striking out a lot less than Thome.

Pods OBP is just about the same for the season as it is for his career. He's made some bonehead plays, but to start the thread "Pods is loosing fan support," is just looking to get a conversation started, but one that isn't going to go anywhere.

The thread is up to #99, and after tonite's futility by the lead-off hitter, I think you'll see a few more posts.

Frontman
08-07-2006, 10:43 PM
The thread is up to #99, and after tonite's futility by the lead-off hitter, I think you'll see a few more posts.

Absolutely. But I'm of the philosophy that the concept of "player support" isn't really how Sox fans go. We support the TEAM, not go all ga-ga over a player. Ok, so we're disappointed in Pods. He isn't doing all that much more than he did last year. He had some bone-head base running FUBARS last year too. Its just with a 15 game cushion, we didn't get worked up over it.

I have the feeling that no matter what the fans think, and even if Scott turns it around and plays better, his time is limited with the Sox anyways. Hell, our power hitters have better OBP compared to our lead off man.

areilly
08-07-2006, 11:10 PM
I want to get this out there AGAIN:

"He won game 2 of last year's World Series" is still a lame argument. Yes, it was a great moment, but last year's World Series is loooong since over. Hell, Wee Willie Harris scored the Series-winning run but I don't see anyone using that to sing his praises.

cgaudin
08-07-2006, 11:15 PM
Absolutely. But I'm of the philosophy that the concept of "player support" isn't really how Sox fans go. We support the TEAM, not go all ga-ga over a player. Ok, so we're disappointed in Pods. He isn't doing all that much more than he did last year. He had some bone-head base running FUBARS last year too. Its just with a 15 game cushion, we didn't get worked up over it.

I have the feeling that no matter what the fans think, and even if Scott turns it around and plays better, his time is limited with the Sox anyways. Hell, our power hitters have better OBP compared to our lead off man.

I recommend the Sox FIND someone BEFORE they get rid of Pods. It's a luxury to have even a "serviceable" lead-off hitter. And truly, if he doesn't find IT within a couple of weeks, the Sox may be done for the year.

The Dude
08-07-2006, 11:20 PM
But, using your logic, shouldn't one of our best hitters not be leading the team in strike outs? Thome is. Granted, he is also leading in HR. If you look at any one stat, you can skew the results to support any argument. Pods has 38 fewer strike outs to Thome. Anyone here going to say Pods is a better hitter than Big Jim?

So he's been picked off 8 times. He's also striking out a lot less than Thome.

Pods OBP is just about the same for the season as it is for his career. He's made some bonehead plays, but to start the thread "Pods is loosing fan support," is just looking to get a conversation started, but one that isn't going to go anywhere.

What logic do you speak of??? All I said is a leadoff hitter who can't hit homers, shouldnt strike out as much as a power hitter!!!!!!!!
I'm done arguing the Thome thing because it has nothing to do with Pods below average play. Thome=MVP of team, end of story.

Also, I hope you aren't refering to me because if you look, I didn't start this thread.

Not sure what it will take for people to realize that, as Santo=Dorf puts nicely...."Pods isn't very good!"

Chips
08-08-2006, 12:15 AM
Who cares about BA? For a leadoff hitter, OBP is much more important, and his is about average for leadoff hitters. K rate also doesn't matter much since they're usually replacing groundouts or other non-productive outs anyway. He's still 5th in the AL in SB, only one behind everyone's hearthrob, Carl Crawford. Compared with the four players ahead of him in SB, his OBP is about equal to Crawford and better than Figgins and Patterson.

Seriously, this Pods scapegoating is getting pretty absurd. No one ever said he was Rickey Henderson. But compared to the other leadoff hitters in the league in the categories that matter, he's above average.

What are the categories that matter? OBP?

If OBP is much more important than batting average and Pods is 13th in the AL in OBP, can you explain to me why he is so damn excellent?

kitekrazy
08-08-2006, 01:52 PM
It's plain to see that Pods is not doing that stuff to the same extent as he was doing it last year,

I think you can make that statement for most of the Sox players. Mark, Freddy, Contreras, Uribe, Cotts, Polite, Hermanson, Dye abd Crede are having career years.

Detroit, Cleveland are not having the same year as last year either.

kitekrazy
08-08-2006, 02:04 PM
Sorry for the rant on our offensive "woes", people. I keep forgeting that the pitching is the true culprit for having played less-than-average baseball last month.
So you are saying the team E.R.A. that's in the bottom half of the AL may have something to do with it? Insane!

NardiWasHere
08-08-2006, 05:05 PM
He's not that good of a player. He isn't horrible by any means, but if i had to improve any position on the team, I upgrade LF/Leadoff without hesitation. When he was playing like last year, he was a fun player to watch.... this year I can't overlook the horrible D and poor hitting.

Frontman
08-08-2006, 05:45 PM
What logic do you speak of??? All I said is a leadoff hitter who can't hit homers, shouldnt strike out as much as a power hitter!!!!!!!!
I'm done arguing the Thome thing because it has nothing to do with Pods below average play. Thome=MVP of team, end of story.

Also, I hope you aren't refering to me because if you look, I didn't start this thread.

Not sure what it will take for people to realize that, as Santo=Dorf puts nicely...."Pods isn't very good!"

My whole point Dude is that Scott has never been an outstanding lead off hitter. He's just never been, and now all of a sudden we're "not supporting him?!?!" Its more a long the lines of "Man, our team is sucking, and since we can't bring ourselves to point out the starting pitching as being the culprits, let's blame the lead-off man who's OBP for the season equals what its been his entire career."

Front

RockyMtnSoxFan
08-08-2006, 05:57 PM
The problem with Pods this year is that he is no longer a catalyst. Last year, he provided the spark to the entire lineup. I couldn't count how many times he reached base leading off the game -- either by a walk or hit or forcing an error -- then stole second, advanced on a groundout, and scored on a sac fly. If he didn't steal, Gooch would often move him over. These scenarios put the Sox ahead in the first even when the offense was struggling. I think this gave the entire team a sense of confidence and power, because they knew that they could score runs when they had to. The pitchers knew they could attack hitters because they were ahead, and even if they weren't ahead they had confidence in the offense. They didn't get an enormous amount of run support, but it was usually enough to win the game.

This year there is no catalyst, or if there is it's Thome. It seems as if everyone is waiting for him to hit the big homer, and taking their cues from him. Sometimes this works; Thome connects and the negative effect on the opposing pitcher combined with the positive effect on the rest of the lineup lead to a whole bunch of runs. More often, however, Thome strikes out; he has more that 3 times as many Ks as HRs. The rest of the lineup manages to hit a few solo shots, and the pitchers are trying to be perfect. The pitching staff doesn't seem to have the confidence from last year. There is no general feeling that every game is winnable, that the team can come back at any point.

So as far as Pods goes, I guess he might be putting up numbers similar to his career averages, but he does not have the same effect on the lineup as last year. Now he is just another .270 hitter, who has a tendency to ground out or watch the third strike. He's not a catalyst or sparkplug or whatever he was last year. To me, this makes him worthy of replacement at the end of the season. 32 stolen bases is good, but not great, and he doesn't play the kind of defense this team needs.

esbrechtel
08-09-2006, 01:29 AM
i personally would like to see an upgrade at short...i think pods has good and bad days like most ball players and he only completely biffs like 2 or 3 balls every few weeks i remember the days when cabio would just trot around out there and not catch fly balls

JorgeFabregas
08-09-2006, 01:37 AM
I was curious about Pods' zone rating and range factor. They're actually reasonably high compared to other LFers in the game. Defensively, left-fielders are a pretty motley crew. Most teams put their worst or second-worst defender there.

Unfortunately, he's near the bottom in OPS.

SoxWillWin
08-09-2006, 02:02 AM
Okay in a perfect world the sox would have an all star at every position, but we don't.

There is a reason this is called a TEAM.

Think about this, you put last years lineup out there (basically - Thome) with the way Pods is playing and were at or below .500

Pods will not be the sole reason this TEAM plays poorly. One more question, all this complaining about Pods performance when, for the season, he's still statistically better offensively than Brian Anderson.

So where's the "Trade Anderson" Thread.

Chisox003
08-09-2006, 02:05 AM
Okay in a perfect world the sox would have an all star at every position, but we don't.

There is a reason this is called a TEAM.

Think about this, you put last years lineup out there (basically - Thome) with the way Pods is playing and were at or below .500

Pods will not be the sole reason this TEAM plays poorly. One more question, all this complaining about Pods performance when, for the season, he's still statistically better offensively than Brian Anderson.

So where's the "Trade Anderson" Thread. 1. Podsednik is our lead off hitter
2. Podsednik is our lead off hitter
3. Podsednik is our LEAD OFF hitter
4. Brian has played gold glove defense
5. Podsednik has not

I don't even have a problem with Scott, but that has to be the worst comparison you could've thrown out there.

Edit: And if you want to find a trade/send Anderson down thread, just go back about a month or so. You'll find enough to make you gag from April-July.

kitekrazy
08-09-2006, 02:08 AM
Okay in a perfect world the sox would have an all star at every position, but we don't.

There is a reason this is called a TEAM.

Think about this, you put last years lineup out there (basically - Thome) with the way Pods is playing and were at or below .500

Pods will not be the sole reason this TEAM plays poorly. One more question, all this complaining about Pods performance when, for the season, he's still statistically better offensively than Brian Anderson.

So where's the "Trade Anderson" Thread.

It could be worse. We could have Jaun Pierre. You missed the "trade Anderson" threads last month.

SoxWillWin
08-09-2006, 02:12 AM
4. Brian has played gold glove defense
5. Podsednik has not



That is why I said OFFENSIVELY.

Pods defense has always been shady.

And position in the batting order does not change you ability to NOT SWING AND MISS.

cgaudin
08-09-2006, 06:17 PM
Okay in a perfect world the sox would have an all star at every position, but we don't.

There is a reason this is called a TEAM.

Think about this, you put last years lineup out there (basically - Thome) with the way Pods is playing and were at or below .500

Pods will not be the sole reason this TEAM plays poorly. One more question, all this complaining about Pods performance when, for the season, he's still statistically better offensively than Brian Anderson.

So where's the "Trade Anderson" Thread.

Shucks! I forgot. Let me get started on it right away....no doubt the ultimate scrub in the team. And you people are giving his defense WAY TOO MUCH credit.

Steelrod
08-09-2006, 06:26 PM
It just scares me when Rob and Scotty are both out there. Definate downgrade in defense and the other teams know it, taking extra bases at will.

hi im skot
08-09-2006, 07:48 PM
Shucks! I forgot. Let me get started on it right away....no doubt the ultimate scrub in the team. And you people are giving his defense WAY TOO MUCH credit.

Wrong.

santo=dorf
08-09-2006, 11:34 PM
I was curious about Pods' zone rating and range factor. They're actually reasonably high compared to other LFers in the game. Defensively, left-fielders are a pretty motley crew. Most teams put their worst or second-worst defender there.

Unfortunately, he's near the bottom in OPS.
Those crappy stats just tell how many flyballs Pods catches in a game. BP was talking about the Sox's dipping K rate, which leads to more flyball opportunities. Of the the 5 starters, Contreras has the high GB/AO ratio of a measly 1.12


My own eyes tell me Pods runs on his tippy toes and has no arm.

Craig Grebeck
08-09-2006, 11:46 PM
Even the most accomplished sabermetricians would tell you how miserable most defensive metrics are.

The Dude
08-10-2006, 12:43 AM
Shucks! I forgot. Let me get started on it right away....no doubt the ultimate scrub in the team. And you people are giving his defense WAY TOO MUCH credit.

Shucks, you are a very smart poster!:rolleyes:

southsideirish71
08-10-2006, 12:59 AM
Since the allstar break

Pods .215BA .273OBP He is 3 for 4 in SB. 16ks vs 5bb

The Dude
08-10-2006, 01:11 AM
Since the allstar break

Pods .215BA .273OBP He is 3 for 4 in SB. 16ks vs 5bb

Wow, I knew the stats weren't good but that's worse than I thought!:o:

pczarapa
08-10-2006, 01:13 AM
Since the allstar break

Pods .215BA .273OBP He is 3 for 4 in SB. 16ks vs 5bb

Wow, I had no idea he was slumping that bad since the break

MikeLove
08-10-2006, 01:21 AM
cause WSI doesnt let you point out problems without jumping all over your case

Mod Edit: Since you don't like the way things are run, I'm giving you a week to find someplace else that lets you do just that.

FedEx227
08-10-2006, 02:48 AM
Ouch .273 OBP is definetly not ideal from your leadoff hitter.

Law11
08-10-2006, 08:49 AM
Last night a friend asked me why Ozzie wasnt PH for pods in th 9th for mack.
He was worried he would hit a dribbler and end the game in a dp..

I told them dont worry he'll look at the first pitch and wind up striking out as usual... whatta shocker...

talk about reading a guy like a book. The scouts must spend about 30 seconds on how to pitch to him before a game.

jenn2080
08-10-2006, 08:57 AM
Last night a friend asked me why Ozzie wasnt PH for pods in th 9th for mack.
He was worried he would hit a dribbler and end the game in a dp..

I told them dont worry he'll look at the first pitch and wind up striking out as usual... whatta shocker...

talk about reading a guy like a book. The scouts must spend about 30 seconds on how to pitch to him before a game.


I am so tired of watching Pods play. It is the same thing every game. He is exhausting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kitekrazy
08-10-2006, 09:26 AM
Last night a friend asked me why Ozzie wasnt PH for pods in th 9th for mack.
He was worried he would hit a dribbler and end the game in a dp..

I told them dont worry he'll look at the first pitch and wind up striking out as usual... whatta shocker...

talk about reading a guy like a book. The scouts must spend about 30 seconds on how to pitch to him before a game.

Who has a better chance of beating out a double play?

Yes he struck out. Don't confuse Rivera with Neal Cotts. Rivera's the best closer in the game.

TornLabrum
08-10-2006, 09:34 AM
Who has a better chance of beating out a double play?

Yes he struck out. Don't confuse Rivera with Neal Cotts. Rivera's the best closer in the game.
And very hard for lefties to figure out. See Thome Jim.

Luke
08-10-2006, 10:23 AM
And very hard for lefties to figure out. See Thome Jim.

Or AJ in the 8th.

Although there are plenty of righties that can't figure him. That cutter is just nasty. I don't think Pods had a chance.

Law11
08-10-2006, 11:20 AM
Who has a better chance of beating out a double play?

Yes he struck out. Don't confuse Rivera with Neal Cotts. Rivera's the best closer in the game.


No doubt but to beat out a DP you have to put the ball in play...
Which against Rivera I suspected was unlikley... Especially when he lets EVERY pitcher get ahead of him 0-1 0-2.. By staring at the the first two pitches.. Thats where my issue is with him.. Either that or its the lame fake bunt attempt.. Like he's scaring anyone anymore with that..
Now he did work the count to 2-2 which i give him credit for but you knew he wasnt going to put the bat on the ball and poof strike 3.
The strikeout was actually a good thing. It got Iguchi to the plate with the inning still alive.

mph32
08-10-2006, 11:25 AM
Not only does he just stand there and strike out, but he also has one of the worst throwing arms in the game. Man on second and a single to left with him out there is a run. Kenny needs to get a new leadoff hitter next year... Then when he does strike out, he acts like its no big deal.
Pods, at least show that you care a little bit, we know you have a model wife and you want to get home, but just pretend you care.

Law11
08-10-2006, 11:35 AM
Not only does he just stand there and strike out, but he also has one of the worst throwing arms in the game. Man on second and a single to left with him out there is a run. Kenny needs to get a new leadoff hitter next year... Then when he does strike out, he acts like its no big deal.
Pods, at least show that you care a little bit, we know you have a model wife and you want to get home, but just pretend you care.


He cares, I mean the guy doesnt wanna K but he has no consistency.. (unless you count taking the first pitch 99% of the time)
The fear of him as a leadoff hitter is long gone.. Ricky henderson he never was but last year as he went so did the team for much of the season..

This team will have a new look next year no doubt..but thats then this is now and we need him to get hot.

Sox-o-matic
08-10-2006, 11:40 AM
I love Pods for everything he did for this team last year, but he has to be gone after this year. He isn't getting on base anywhere near as often as he should be, he isn't running as much as he should be when he is getting on, he isn't driving in runs, and he is playing, at best, slightly above average at the 9th most important defensive position on the field. This is far too much to ignore.

maurice
08-10-2006, 01:10 PM
Podsednik is terrible defensively, but he probably does have better range than the average LF. The average LF is BOTH terrible defensively AND much slower than Podsednik. Thus, on occasion, Podsednik can use his speed to make up for a bad jump or route and get to a ball that the average LF would miss.

OTOH, very few players have a worse throwing arm than Podsednik.

kitekrazy
08-10-2006, 01:15 PM
So how many games has Pods cost the Sox this year?

shavo2k2
08-10-2006, 01:24 PM
god everyone needs to relax. I wanted to punch pods in the face around this time last year with his whole "i'm gonna get picked off litererally every time i try to steal" routine and he was completely fine in the playoffs. We're money, liriano went down and the red sox are losing games to the royals.

If we don't make the playoffs now, it is due to injury or our players just do not want it. (which hasn't looked like the case in the last two games against the yankees.)

And one thing that keeps making me mad is everyone's obsessed with having a team that does not rely on the homerun because of the valentine, carlos lee era. Hitting a ton of homers is completely fine as long as we can move runners over and PITCH. In my mind a team that is known for "smallball" (i.e. last year) can also be referenced to as a team that can pitch really well and struggles with the bats so bunting, sac flies, etc become much more important.

I feel like right now our bullpen is fine, our hitting lineup is fine, lets just go starting pitching....Javier please don't be a baby and let up 1 run that eventually leads to 8.

Sorry my first post after being a reader of this board for like a month. Had to rant a little.....

We got this. No worries.

cgaudin
08-10-2006, 06:08 PM
Hey, when is Ichiro's contract up with Seattle, anyway. Maybe Freddy might want to go back to his old team....?

lizard6king6
08-10-2006, 06:24 PM
Is this thread still around?:rolleyes: ? Get over it, all is well and so is Pods.

kitekrazy
08-10-2006, 06:39 PM
Is this thread still around?:rolleyes: ? Get over it, all is well and so is Pods.

If he is in the lineup tonight there'll be more.

areilly
08-10-2006, 08:29 PM
Hey, when is Ichiro's contract up with Seattle, anyway. Maybe Freddy might want to go back to his old team....?

We'd have to cough up considerably more than Freddy to get Ichiro. In terms of value to a franchise and fanbase, he's easily in the same ballpark of what Jeter is to the Yankees or Ortiz is to the Red Sox.

santo=dorf
08-10-2006, 09:04 PM
Is this thread still around?:rolleyes: ? Get over it, all is well and so is Pods.
Hey look! A Pods apologist! We haven't seen one of you around since his numbers were posted about 50 posts ago.

Are you that biased, or are you just blind?

Maybe you're Kevin Bacon and bringing back your character from Animal House.

http://www.dack.com/images/weblog/kevin-bacon.jpg
"ALL IS WELL!!! .264 OBP SINCE THE AL-STAR BREAK!!! ALL IS WELL!!!!"

FarWestChicago
08-10-2006, 11:52 PM
Umm...He's currently 5th in the AL in stolen bases, only a few behind those in front of him. That may be down from last year, but "busted legs"???:?: Doesn't that sound like just a teensey bit of an exaggeration?No, it sounds like shoota. :rolleyes:

Brian26
08-10-2006, 11:59 PM
I think West is back from vacation :D:

FarWestChicago
08-11-2006, 12:01 AM
I think West is back from vacation :D:Yep. :redneck

nasox
08-11-2006, 12:17 AM
I think West is back from vacation :D:


West got banned?

bgpoppapaul
08-11-2006, 12:18 AM
One thing that makes me absolutely insane about Podsednik is the fact that he plays far too deep on many hitters. While he appears that have been talked to as he's been playing up a bit more lately, he's had more than a few singles fall that shouldn't have gotten there. I started noticing it in late June, and he's consistently playing so far back that too many balls are falling in for hits/or causing him to have to do Sammyesque circus slides. BTW when did Posada get pre-vigorous offseason conditioning program I-Rod's arm? Dye aside earlier tonight, I don't think we've had anyone succesfully steal this series. He's embarrassed us this series with the number of put outs he has.

Lip Man 1
08-11-2006, 01:33 AM
Ichiro's contract is up after the 2007 season. I recently saw in, I think, The Sporting News an item about his not being happy with the direction of the Mariners.

I think for the right package Seattle will try to move him in the off season or at the least, come July.

Lip

FarWestChicago
08-11-2006, 01:34 AM
Ichiro's contract is up after the 2007 season. I recently saw in, I think, The Sporting News an item about his not being happy with the direction of the Mariners.

I think for the right package Seattle will try to move him in the off season or at the least, come July.

LipLip, just become a Skanks fan and quit envying those who follow The Stein. :rolleyes:

Tragg
08-11-2006, 01:58 AM
OTOH, very few players have a worse throwing arm than Podsednik.
The Yankees have a candidate...Johnny Damon....that would be close...
Pods' needs to get his OBP back up to .350...if that happens, I don't see a better lead-off hitter on the horizon than he.

hawkjt
08-11-2006, 03:02 AM
pods was player of the game tonite - he is driving in some big runs with two outs this year.

We need him to get in one of those line-drive streaks of his- he had it going for a little while this year.

JB98
08-11-2006, 03:25 AM
pods was player of the game tonite - he is driving in some big runs with two outs this year.

We need him to get in one of those line-drive streaks of his- he had it going for a little while this year.

He used the middle of the field today. That's a good sign.

Grzegorz
08-11-2006, 05:33 AM
He used the middle of the field today. That's a good sign.

He put in for extra work with Walk; that's a good sign too.

Congrats Pods, keep it up...

The Dude
08-11-2006, 08:24 AM
pods was player of the game tonite - he is driving in some big runs with two outs this year.

We need him to get in one of those line-drive streaks of his- he had it going for a little while this year.
Exactly! I just hope maybe last night can give him some confidence to finish the year solid. I just don't know though. Hopefully he will prove me and others wrong because we really need a table setter for the stretch run.

JB98
08-11-2006, 01:03 PM
Exactly! I just hope maybe last night can give him some confidence to finish the year solid. I just don't know though. Hopefully he will prove me and others wrong because we really need a table setter for the stretch run.

We better hope he proves you and others wrong because we sure as hell don't have anybody else who can bat leadoff.

The Dude
08-11-2006, 05:27 PM
We better hope he proves you and others wrong because we sure as hell don't have anybody else who can bat leadoff.

I agree 100 %!!!!:D:

The only other two is Mac and Ozuna. I think if he doesn't get it together on a consistant basis, maybe we can give Mac a shot. Didn't he leadoff some at Pittsburgh?

SoxWillWin
08-11-2006, 05:30 PM
I agree 100 %!!!!:D:

The only other two is Mac and Ozuna. I think if he doesn't get it together on a consistant basis, maybe we can give Mac a shot. Didn't he leadoff some at Pittsburgh?

if those are the options lets just bat Thome leadoff and hope he pounds one out of the park to start the game:D:

wassagstdu
08-11-2006, 05:52 PM
Some of the comments in this thread are just stupid. Without Scot Podsednik there would have been no 2005 World Series for the Sox. He got a serious injury from which he is still recovering -- may never fully recover. And some stat-heads and fantasy league GM's want to chase him out of town. It's one thing to trash someone who was not on the 2005 team, or whose contribution may have been marginal. But to cut no slack for the offensive MVP of the first WS champion Sox team in four generations is just disgusting. What does it mean to be a "fan?" It wasn't the Sox logo that won in 2005 and it wasn't the local fantasy league GM's. A fan would show a little loyalty to the team.

.

samram
08-11-2006, 06:13 PM
Some of the comments in this thread are just stupid. Without Scot Podsednik there would have been no 2005 World Series for the Sox. He got a serious injury from which he is still recovering -- may never fully recover. And some stat-heads and fantasy league GM's want to chase him out of town. It's one thing to trash someone who was not on the 2005 team, or whose contribution may have been marginal. But to cut no slack for the offensive MVP of the first WS champion Sox team in four generations is just disgusting. What does it mean to be a "fan?" It wasn't the Sox logo that won in 2005 and it wasn't the local fantasy league GM's. A fan would show a little loyalty to the team.

.

I didn't know Scott Podsednik was the team.

StatHead21
08-11-2006, 06:44 PM
Some of the comments in this thread are just stupid. Without Scot Podsednik there would have been no 2005 World Series for the Sox. He got a serious injury from which he is still recovering -- may never fully recover. And some stat-heads and fantasy league GM's want to chase him out of town. It's one thing to trash someone who was not on the 2005 team, or whose contribution may have been marginal. But to cut no slack for the offensive MVP of the first WS champion Sox team in four generations is just disgusting. What does it mean to be a "fan?" It wasn't the Sox logo that won in 2005 and it wasn't the local fantasy league GM's. A fan would show a little loyalty to the team.

.

Falling in love with hero's from the past is what gets teams into trouble. For example, the Angels giving Darrin Erstad a huge contract. Pods was great the first half of 05 and in the playoffs. But the fact is he's a 30 year old who can't hit for power, he can't run like he use to and he can't play the field. His time is almost up, time to move on and look to the future.

JB98
08-11-2006, 06:50 PM
I agree 100 %!!!!:D:

The only other two is Mac and Ozuna. I think if he doesn't get it together on a consistant basis, maybe we can give Mac a shot. Didn't he leadoff some at Pittsburgh?

Possibly, but I don't recall him doing so. Let's face it: The Pittsburgh Pirates haven't been on TV too much the last five years. I think Mack batted sixth a lot, but I just haven't seen enough Pirates baseball to comment with certainty.

StatHead21
08-11-2006, 06:52 PM
I agree 100 %!!!!:D:

The only other two is Mac and Ozuna. I think if he doesn't get it together on a consistant basis, maybe we can give Mac a shot. Didn't he leadoff some at Pittsburgh?

Mac takes pitches, gets on base, has decent speed and is a great base runner. Gooch wouldn't be a bad leadoff man either.

JB98
08-11-2006, 06:58 PM
Mac takes pitches, gets on base, has decent speed and is a great base runner. Gooch wouldn't be a bad leadoff man either.

Gooch is very streaky, and when he's in a bad streak, the Ks pile up quickly. When he's going good, he'd be a decent leadoff man. But I don't think we'd want to put him in that spot over 162 games.

jabrch
08-11-2006, 07:00 PM
The funny thing is that if Pods gets hot, and goes on a 15 game streak, there will be people coming out of the woodwork again loving him.

Some of these people really must have just become sox fans (or even baseball fans) last fall.

StatHead21
08-11-2006, 07:31 PM
The funny thing is that if Pods gets hot, and goes on a 15 game streak, there will be people coming out of the woodwork again loving him.

Some of these people really must have just become sox fans (or even baseball fans) last fall.

If he does that good for him, that would be awesome, I have nothing against him. I just think they would be better off without him in LF.

cgaudin
08-11-2006, 07:40 PM
Some of the comments in this thread are just stupid. Without Scot Podsednik there would have been no 2005 World Series for the Sox. He got a serious injury from which he is still recovering -- may never fully recover. And some stat-heads and fantasy league GM's want to chase him out of town. It's one thing to trash someone who was not on the 2005 team, or whose contribution may have been marginal. But to cut no slack for the offensive MVP of the first WS champion Sox team in four generations is just disgusting. What does it mean to be a "fan?" It wasn't the Sox logo that won in 2005 and it wasn't the local fantasy league GM's. A fan would show a little loyalty to the team.

.

Well said. Too many "what-have-you-done-for-me-lately" types around here. If I didn't know better I'd say they were from NY. I started this thread not so much to rag on Pods, but to get a better gauge on just how most felt about Pods, since I kept noticing a lot of negative threads regarding his play. I'm unhappily surprised that so many have given Pods the "Heisman" already. Not that I blame them altogether. Granted his "catalyst" quality has been absent thus far, but as for me, I will never forget that without Pods last year, we wouldn't be talking "repeat".

SoxWillWin
08-11-2006, 07:42 PM
it just seems like one of those can't live with him, can't live without him scenarios right now.

jabrch
08-11-2006, 07:45 PM
If he does that good for him, that would be awesome, I have nothing against him. I just think they would be better off without him in LF.

Your handle indicates otherwise.

NoShoesJoe
08-11-2006, 07:48 PM
Think of it in terms of your own career. If you were a superstar last year, but went into a slump this year, what would your customers, or more importantly your boss have to say? I like Pods, I think he's great, but he hasn't been up to par recently. His defense isn't great, offense has been lacking, and more importantly (as some mentioned), his catalyst effect has been absent. He not getting good reads and jumps when attempting to steal. He striking out too much, and looking at too many 1st call strikes. He's not as agressive at the plate, etc. I hope he comes around and get's back to his former level of play. It looks like me may, from what I heard, he has been working hard with Walker to hit to left and shorten up his swing. I think he simply needs an adjustment and he'll be fine. Back to your career, he's on a 90 day program. If his performance doesn't improve, he may find himself out.

samram
08-11-2006, 08:51 PM
The funny thing is that if Pods gets hot, and goes on a 15 game streak, there will be people coming out of the woodwork again loving him.

Some of these people really must have just become sox fans (or even baseball fans) last fall.

No, I've been a Sox fan all my life. I root for Pods to do well, but I also realize he's a flawed player and I think a lot of people overlook those flaws because of one homer in the postseason last year (not you, perhaps, but many do).

wassagstdu
08-11-2006, 11:35 PM
No, I've been a Sox fan all my life. I root for Pods to do well, but I also realize he's a flawed player and I think a lot of people overlook those flaws because of one homer in the postseason last year.
If that is all you saw last year you must have been born after the All-Star break.

I saw him propel the Sox to the early lead in, what was it, 36 straight games or something like that. Then go down with a groin that took away his speed (and made the Sox a .500 team in the second half) and only then come back and hit those HRs in the post-season because if he couldn't contribute one way he would another.

I think he earned some loyalty.

.

Craig Grebeck
08-12-2006, 08:30 AM
If that is all you saw last year you must have been born after the All-Star break.

I saw him propel the Sox to the early lead in, what was it, 36 straight games or something like that. Then go down with a groin that took away his speed (and made the Sox a .500 team in the second half) and only then come back and hit those HRs in the post-season because if he couldn't contribute one way he would another.

I think he earned some loyalty.

.
So did Cliff, but baseball is a business, and getting caught up in the individual personalities of a team can hurt your outlook. Even if Pods was the "offensive MVP" of last year (debatable) he still has been incredibly mediocre this year and there's no reason to chide someone for wanting him gone after this pathetic year.

samram
08-12-2006, 08:46 AM
If that is all you saw last year you must have been born after the All-Star break.

I saw him propel the Sox to the early lead in, what was it, 36 straight games or something like that. Then go down with a groin that took away his speed (and made the Sox a .500 team in the second half) and only then come back and hit those HRs in the post-season because if he couldn't contribute one way he would another.

I think he earned some loyalty.

.

Yes, but I want to win the 2006 WS. Look, I know he's the best option this year and I want him to play well and win another WS, but that doesn't mean I think the Sox can't find someone better for next year and I believe Kenny and Ozzie agree with me.

caulfield12
08-12-2006, 08:49 AM
Yeah, we weren't loyal, so to speak, to El Duque, Rowand, etc.

Baseball is a business. If Pods can still help us win, then OG and KW will keep him around next season. If a trade or Jerry Owens/Ryan Sweeney/Josh Fields is perceived to be the better (and cheaper) answer, then he will be gone.

If Sweeney or Fields IS the starting LFer, then we will need to trade Uribe in all likelihood for a leadoff hitter from that position. And Uribe's already in the doghouse right now, so I wouldn't doubt that for one second.

Gregory Pratt
08-12-2006, 09:07 AM
So did Cliff, but baseball is a business, and getting caught up in the individual personalities of a team can hurt your outlook. Even if Pods was the "offensive MVP" of last year (debatable) he still has been incredibly mediocre this year and there's no reason to chide someone for wanting him gone after this pathetic year.

His numbers are not pathetic, they aren't even mediocre. He has put up very respectable numbers in the leadoff spot, and has been clutch with RISP. He's cheap, salary-wise, and considering that, he's one helluva bargain.

Also, saying, "So did Cliff" is a false comparison. Cliff Politte was so obviously done for this year as to be painful to watch. Scott Podsednik is not Cliff Politte.

wassagstdu
08-12-2006, 09:10 AM
Yeah, we weren't loyal, so to speak, to El Duque, Rowand, etc.

Baseball is a business. If Pods can still help us win, then OG and KW will keep him around next season. If a trade or Jerry Owens/Ryan Sweeney/Josh Fields is perceived to be the better (and cheaper) answer, then he will be gone. I don't have a problem with that. But nobody said about El Duque or Rowand the kind of trash that some have said here about Pods. There is a difference between trading up and just wanting to be rid of someone. As for loyalty, yes, WE were loyal to Rowand, even though he was traded for the good of the team. WE wished Frank well with the A's even though we recognized that he was let go for the good of the team. We didn't say "We're tired of his act and we want him gone."

.

SoxWillWin
08-12-2006, 09:33 AM
Let's take a look at his numbers where everyone can see them.
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
2005 129 507 80 147 28 1 0 25 177 47 75 59 23 .351 .349 .290
2006 106 402 75 107 24 6 3 40 152 43 74 32 14 .338 .378 .266

What stands out to me.
1. He's going to play in more games than last year.

2. he's going to surpass his runs scored from last year.

3.Already has more 3B and HR and will surpass his 2B total from last year.

4.will surpass BOTH walk and strikeout #'s from last year.

5.will not catch SB number from last year.

6. OBP only 13 points lower than last year and should match it by the end.

7. SLG % is 29 points higher than last year

8. BA down by 24 points.

These offensive numbers don't look like a "terrible player" to me.

Now defensive.
G GS INN TC PO A E DP RF FPC
2006 104 92 838.0 199 190 2 7 0 2.06 .9652005
2005 127 124 1116.2 280 274 3 3 1 2.23 .989
It is glaringly obvious that his defense is atrocious compared to last year.

So if the "Pods must die" movement is based on defense fine, but I don't think his offensive numbers warrant a lynch mob just yet

Ol' No. 2
08-12-2006, 10:09 AM
Let's take a look at his numbers where everyone can see them.
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
2005 129 507 80 147 28 1 0 25 177 47 75 59 23 .351 .349 .290
2006 106 402 75 107 24 6 3 40 152 43 74 32 14 .338 .378 .266

What stands out to me.
1. He's going to play in more games than last year.

2. he's going to surpass his runs scored from last year.

3.Already has more 3B and HR and will surpass his 2B total from last year.

4.will surpass BOTH walk and strikeout #'s from last year.

5.will not catch SB number from last year.

6. OBP only 13 points lower than last year and should match it by the end.

7. SLG % is 29 points higher than last year

8. BA down by 24 points.

These offensive numbers don't look like a "terrible player" to me.

Now defensive.
G GS INN TC PO A E DP RF FPC
2006 104 92 838.0 199 190 2 7 0 2.06 .9652005
2005 127 124 1116.2 280 274 3 3 1 2.23 .989
It is glaringly obvious that his defense is atrocious compared to last year.

So if the "Pods must die" movement is based on defense fine, but I don't think his offensive numbers warrant a lynch mob just yetYou guys are wasting your time. The Pods haters don't need logic or statistics on their side. With the mountains of different kinds of stats, they just pull out one or two that are sub-standard and ignore everything else. Next we're going to hear how, for some reason or other, his two RBI on Thursday night and his generating the first run last night almost single-handed don't count.:rolleyes:

SoxWillWin
08-12-2006, 10:15 AM
You guys are wasting your time. The Pods haters don't need logic or statistics on their side. With the mountains of different kinds of stats, they just pull out one or two that are sub-standard and ignore everything else. Next we're going to hear how, for some reason or other, his two RBI on Thursday night and his generating the first run last night almost single-handed don't count.:rolleyes:

I know, but humoring them is better than insomnia......

Ol' No. 2
08-12-2006, 10:28 AM
I know, but humoring them is better than insomnia......Ignoring them is still better. This is a rerun of the Crede hate we had last year, and it's starting to take on Shoota-esque characteristics.

SoxWillWin
08-12-2006, 10:41 AM
Ignoring them is still better. This is a rerun of the Crede hate we had last year, and it's starting to take on Shoota-esque characteristics.

I forgot about shoota, I've been offline for so long I forgot about all those wondeful posts by shoota

jabrch
08-12-2006, 10:45 AM
No, I've been a Sox fan all my life. I root for Pods to do well, but I also realize he's a flawed player and I think a lot of people overlook those flaws because of one homer in the postseason last year (not you, perhaps, but many do).

I don't think anyone overlooks the flaws. If we could acquire Carl Crawford to lead off and play LF, everyone would be fine. We'd wish Pods well, and send him packing (same as with Aaron, very few still truly think we'd be better off with him over Thome). But a team needs a leadoff hitter. Pods is that guy. I know there is a school of thought that says that Matt Stairs and Kevin Youkilis are better leadoff hitters than Podsednik, but the assumptions behind that conclusion are terribly flawed. EVEN THE RED SOX HAVE REALIZED THIS, as Crisp has been leading off and Youk has been moved to 5 the past week. Even the As have Kendall leading off. While he isn't as fast as he once was, he's still faster than any options they have.

Pods isn't perfect. I don't think anyone says that. Even the Pods defenders surely recognize it. But that doesn't mean he should "lose fan support" as the thread title indicates.

Put it this way, we are not going to be able to acquire a leadoff hitter or a stud LF this year given where we are with relationship to the waiver deadline. So we have Pods. He shouldn't lose fan support as long as he keeps doing the same thing.

By the way, while it isn't optimal, .266/.340 isn't terrible. It isn't optimal, but it isn't anything that precludes the team from winning. Pods is not on the top 5 list of this team's biggest problems. (which are obviously fairly small, when you consider that this still is the team with the 4th best record in all of baseball.

Some people look for things to bitch about...(not you...but the same people bashing Pods are many of those who jump on the flavor of the month ever time a new bashee is identified.

cgaudin
08-12-2006, 11:36 AM
IMO, speed around the bases has a quality that cannot be measured in statistical data. Having a baserunner that can disrupt the timing and rhythm of a pitcher is the reason the White Sox scored many runs early in the game last season. Pitchers, in turn will have a tendency to be more aggressive when pitching with a lead. I believe this is the primary reason the Sox pitching staff has "underachieved" this year. The Sox pitchers have played with early leads less often this year than last year. The White Sox no longer suscribed to that offensive philosophy of "Ozzie ball". They didn't have the boppers as they do this year. Until the last two weeks, Podsednik had not been aggressive at the bases BY DESIGN, neither was Gooch. How many hit 'n run plays have you seen this year compared to last year?......EXACTLY.

I was surprised to see the offensive speed of the Yankmees when they played in Chicago. I would like the Sox to improve their lineup with more speed around the bases, especially in the 8 and 9 slots in the batting order. The Sox have to have the worst 8 and 9 hitters in baseball, aside from the Angels. Anderson has been given an entire season to get his ducks in order, but he's still hanging around .210 with almost 70 strikeouts. Sorry, people, but there are dime-a-dozen players in the minors that play great defense but can't hit the broadside of a barn. BA is not a major league ballplayer, plain and simple. Uribe is a drag on the team. He acts as if he's the best player on the team and he's just more dead weight. These two can be and should be replaced come next year. Give another minor leaguer a shot. He can't possibly turn out worse than BA. The key is replacing them with faster baserunners. If Pods ever gets fully healed, his speed should be exploited every opportunity he gets on base.

hawkjt
08-12-2006, 01:09 PM
cg; you are a broken record on Brian Anderson-

please reflect on his last two months - he is hitting .287 in that stretch. So while he was hitting horribly- first two +months of the season- sox were rolling. Since he has started hitting near .300 , they have struggled.

He is not hurting this team at the plate the last two months- get it?

Overall numbers mean nothing when looking at a rookie. What is the trend?
The trend says he is going to be a .280 hitter from here on out. Along with his obvious defensive prowess- Brian is a big asset to a team that depends on defense and pitching to win. give it up.

PeoriaSoxFan
08-12-2006, 01:12 PM
Pods, Gooch, and Cintron with hits as of late. AJ with a HR with a man on. All good, all good.

santo=dorf
08-13-2006, 01:32 PM
Let's take a look at his numbers where everyone can see them.
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
2005 129 507 80 147 28 1 0 25 177 47 75 59 23 .351 .349 .290
2006 106 402 75 107 24 6 3 40 152 43 74 32 14 .338 .378 .266

What stands out to me.
1. He's going to play in more games than last year.
So what? That's a good thing?
2. he's going to surpass his runs scored from last year.
That does mean much considering as you have pointed out, he's going to playing in more games and as I have pointed out sometime ago, the 2006 Sox offense is a ton better than the 2005 offense.
3.Already has more 3B and HR and will surpass his 2B total from last year.
So what? Even Ol' #2 admitted those stats don't matter for a leadoff hitter.
4.will surpass BOTH walk and strikeout #'s from last year.
Stirkeouts suck, especially for a speedy guy who can supposedly create more hits by running out a ground ball. Of course since this doesn't favor Ol #2's argument, he just throws out the idea of strikeout by a batter being meaningful. His walk rate this year is 10.44 PA/BB, last year it was 11.79. So there is an improvement on his walkrate, yet is overall OBP is still .335. Terrible.
5.will not catch SB number from last year.
Yep, and last year he was HURT for half the season. He's now down to a 1/2 tool player.
6. OBP only 13 points lower than last year and should match it by the end.
....and last year he was hurt, and the 2006 offense was a hell of a lot better. Why not compare it to his 2005 OBP when he was healthy? Oh yeah, it'd be foolish to try and spin a .335 being comparable to a .379 OBP
7. SLG % is 29 points higher than last year
So what? He's a leadoff hitter. He also slugged so low last year, 29 points (now 25 points) doesn't show much of a reflection on anything.
8. BA down by 24 points.
Which is directly related to him getting on base, supposedly "wrecking havoc."
These offensive numbers don't look like a "terrible player" to me.
Well if we want to lump Pods in with ALL players, I'd say a line of .264/.335/.374 is terrible.
Now defensive.
G GS INN TC PO A E DP RF FPC
2006 104 92 838.0 199 190 2 7 0 2.06 .9652005
2005 127 124 1116.2 280 274 3 3 1 2.23 .989
It is glaringly obvious that his defense is atrocious compared to last year.

So if the "Pods must die" movement is based on defense fine, but I don't think his offensive numbers warrant a lynch mob just yet

See my comments in red.

GMAB. K's don't matter for a speedy guy? All we hear is about how is if he puts the ball in play, he has a much better chance of most guys because he can reach first.

You're also full of **** by saying "OBP is much more important, and his is about average for leadoff hitters."
According to ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=109&league=mlb&season=2006&seasonType=2&sort=onBasePct&type=reg&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all), for qualified players, Pods is 15th out of 19 in OBP% batting in the #1 spot. Nowhere near the "average" in which you claim.
SB% with the same guys: He's 14th out of 19
Caught Stealing: He's 1st out of 19
Stolen bases: He's 6th out of 19.

"above average leadoff hitter," to quote the immortal Lee Elia "MY ****ING ASS!!!!"
Ol#2, since you're spreading your arrogance on this subject to other threads, care to comment on the research I did on your claims of Pods being an "above average" leadoff hitter? The link ot the ESPN stats are right there.

Ol' No. 2
08-13-2006, 07:19 PM
See my comments in red.


Ol#2, since you're spreading your arrogance on this subject to other threads, care to comment on the research I did on your claims of Pods being an "above average" leadoff hitter? The link ot the ESPN stats are right there.Again with the ranking. Who said anything about ranking?? And really, who gives a rat's ass where he ranks? Would you rather have a player ranking 9th who is 50 pts below the average or ranking dead last, 15 pts below the average?

An average leadoff hitter normally comes in with about a .360 OBP, give or take a few points. Podsednik was .351 last year, and was around that level for most of this year up until a few weeks ago (he was at .348 on Aug 1). You don't judge a player by a slump of a few weeks. That 10 pt difference works out to reaching base about one extra time in a month. BFD. That's a miniscule difference - justifying "about" average.

SoxWillWin
08-13-2006, 11:52 PM
See my comments in red.


If the sox miss the playoffs and you can prove BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that it was all Podsedniks fault great.

or how about this scenario for you, since you basically say that most of those stats mean nothing (why even keep track).

http://www.blackathlete.com/Images/blackbox/kwilliams1.jpg
"So we've signed our new leadoff hitter"
http://rocking-stockings.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/fat-man.jpg
Reporter: "what were his stats in college????"
http://www.blackathlete.com/Images/blackbox/kwilliams1.jpg
"haven't you forgot stats mean nothing, he's a perfect leadoff hitter."

Tragg
08-13-2006, 11:59 PM
santo-dorf
Do you have anything in mind that would improve our leadoff production?

Craig Grebeck
08-14-2006, 06:49 AM
santo-dorf
Do you have anything in mind that would improve our leadoff production?
Someone who doesn't run into outs on the basepaths would be a good start.

Ol' No. 2
08-14-2006, 10:49 AM
Someone who doesn't run into outs on the basepaths would be a good start.Love that station-to-station baseball. Just stay put and wait for someone to hit a home run. It's been so effective for the Sox in the past.:rolleyes:

spiffie
08-14-2006, 11:19 AM
Love that station-to-station baseball. Just stay put and wait for someone to hit a home run. It's been so effective for the Sox in the past.:rolleyes:
An interesting stat I found. From 1951-1961 the White Sox led the AL in stolen bases every single year. 11 straight seasons they had the most SB's in baseball. Records during that time:
1951 - 4th 17GB
1952 - 3rd 14GB
1953 - 3rd 13GB
1954 - 3rd 17GB
1955 - 3rd 5GB
1956 - 3rd 12GB
1957 - 2nd 8GB
1958 - 2nd 10GB
1959 - 1st
1960 - 3rd 10GB
1961 - 4th 23GB

During that stretch the White Sox led the AL in team ERA one time. Want to guess which year that was? Yup, 1959. The only philosophy that has proven to be a winner for this team, and damn near any team in history ever is to have better pitchers than your opponents. Lots of power and bad pitching = the first few years of this decade. Lots of speed and just above average pitching = lots of 2nd and 3rd place finished in the 1950's. Best pitching in the league = our last 2 World Series berths.

DaleJRFan
08-14-2006, 12:07 PM
An interesting stat I found. From 1951-1961 the White Sox led the AL in stolen bases every single year. 11 straight seasons they had the most SB's in baseball. Records during that time:
1951 - 4th 17GB
1952 - 3rd 14GB
1953 - 3rd 13GB
1954 - 3rd 17GB
1955 - 3rd 5GB
1956 - 3rd 12GB
1957 - 2nd 8GB
1958 - 2nd 10GB
1959 - 1st
1960 - 3rd 10GB
1961 - 4th 23GB

During that stretch the White Sox led the AL in team ERA one time. Want to guess which year that was? Yup, 1959. The only philosophy that has proven to be a winner for this team, and damn near any team in history ever is to have better pitchers than your opponents. Lots of power and bad pitching = the first few years of this decade. Lots of speed and just above average pitching = lots of 2nd and 3rd place finished in the 1950's. Best pitching in the league = our last 2 World Series berths.

C'mon spiffie, don't you subscribe to Sabermetrics?? Stolen bases are worthless. ERA is worthless. OBP% and SLG% are the only two stats that matter. Sac bunts are wastes of outs and stolen bases don't increase the chance of scoring runs.

I tortured myself and watched the Science Channel's documentary on Bill James and Sabermetrics. Anyone else see this? What a farse. You'd think that the project was funded by Billy Beane himself.

Ol' No. 2
08-14-2006, 12:11 PM
An interesting stat I found. From 1951-1961 the White Sox led the AL in stolen bases every single year. 11 straight seasons they had the most SB's in baseball. Records during that time:
1951 - 4th 17GB
1952 - 3rd 14GB
1953 - 3rd 13GB
1954 - 3rd 17GB
1955 - 3rd 5GB
1956 - 3rd 12GB
1957 - 2nd 8GB
1958 - 2nd 10GB
1959 - 1st
1960 - 3rd 10GB
1961 - 4th 23GB

During that stretch the White Sox led the AL in team ERA one time. Want to guess which year that was? Yup, 1959. The only philosophy that has proven to be a winner for this team, and damn near any team in history ever is to have better pitchers than your opponents. Lots of power and bad pitching = the first few years of this decade. Lots of speed and just above average pitching = lots of 2nd and 3rd place finished in the 1950's. Best pitching in the league = our last 2 World Series berths.There's no question that good pitching is the first requirement. At the same time, it's no guarantee. There are always teams with good pitching that don't go anywhere. You still have to score some runs. More to the point, scoring consistently is more important than scoring in quantity. Station-to-station baseball means you have to string together several hits to score a run. A running game means you get runners in scoring position without needing to string together several hits, even if you do occasionally give up an out. Even if your SB rate is 70%, that's still more than twice as likely as the chances of the next guy getting a hit.

spiffie
08-14-2006, 12:34 PM
There's no question that good pitching is the first requirement. At the same time, it's no guarantee. There are always teams with good pitching that don't go anywhere. You still have to score some runs. More to the point, scoring consistently is more important than scoring in quantity. Station-to-station baseball means you have to string together several hits to score a run. A running game means you get runners in scoring position without needing to string together several hits, even if you do occasionally give up an out. Even if your SB rate is 70%, that's still more than twice as likely as the chances of the next guy getting a hit.
It can be nice if it works that way, but then so can simply piling up a lot of guys in a row getting on base.

The last 15 World Series Winners (league rank in SB) (league rank in OBP):
2005 - Sox (3rd) (11th)
2004 - Red Sox (10th) (1st)
2003 - Marlins (1st) (tie 8th)
2002 - Angels (2nd) (4th)
2001 - D-backs (11th) (4th)
2000 - Yankees (6th) (5th)
1999 - Yankees (10th) (2nd)
1998 - Yankess (2nd) (1st)
1997 - Marlins (10th) (tie 2nd)
1996 - Yankees (7th) (tie 3rd)
1995 - Braves (12th) (9th)
1993 - Blue Jays (1st) (3rd)
1992 - Blue Jays (7th) (tie 6th)
1991 - Twins (7th) (1st)
1990 - A's (2nd) (3rd)

Paulwny
08-14-2006, 12:36 PM
I have a problem with guys, Pods appears to be one, who disregard " never make the 1st or last out at 3rd base", personal stats over smart baseball. This to me is " running into outs on the base paths". These players aren't stupid, but stats= $$$$.

russ99
08-14-2006, 12:47 PM
Running into outs is playing aggressive baseball - it also forces teams into mistakes - like the errors in the Detroit and Yankee series.

Pods game seems to have gotten much better lately, but some of these bad swings at strike three are bothering me. I can't wait until the Sox face a bad catcher (tonight against Buck?) since his stealing game is showing signs of really breaking out.

santo=dorf
08-14-2006, 06:36 PM
Again with the ranking. Who said anything about ranking?? And really, who gives a rat's ass where he ranks? Would you rather have a player ranking 9th who is 50 pts below the average or ranking dead last, 15 pts below the average?
I'm sorry, how else would you like me to critque Scott when you make a comment "there are only a handful of leadoff hitters better than him?" Right now he is .001 away from being dead last amongst MLB leadoff hitters in OBP. But who cares?

An average leadoff hitter normally comes in with about a .360 OBP, give or take a few points. Podsednik was .351 last year, and was around that level for most of this year up until a few weeks ago (he was at .348 on Aug 1). You don't judge a player by a slump of a few weeks. That 10 pt difference works out to reaching base about one extra time in a month. BFD. That's a miniscule difference - justifying "about" average.
How hilarious you ripped on people for being selective with time periods in which they pick their stats yet here you are taking out a few weeks of slumping by Pods to try and make your point more valid. His season OBP is .330. That's not good anywhere in the lineup, and even worse at the top of the order.
According to the stats, amongst qualified MLB leadoff men, the average OBP is .358 with the median of .362. 28 and 32 points is a very noticable difference as he is not "about average." You also flipped flopped from calling Pods about "above average" to "about average."

A World Series team should not have a below average OBP lead off man.

Wipe the egg off your face.

Game.Set.Match.
:dumbass:

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 01:48 PM
I'm sorry, how else would you like me to critque Scott when you make a comment "there are only a handful of leadoff hitters better than him?" Right now he is .001 away from being dead last amongst MLB leadoff hitters in OBP. But who cares?


How hilarious you ripped on people for being selective with time periods in which they pick their stats yet here you are taking out a few weeks of slumping by Pods to try and make your point more valid. His season OBP is .330. That's not good anywhere in the lineup, and even worse at the top of the order.
According to the stats, amongst qualified MLB leadoff men, the average OBP is .358 with the median of .362. 28 and 32 points is a very noticable difference as he is not "about average." You also flipped flopped from calling Pods about "above average" to "about average."

A World Series team should not have a below average OBP lead off man.

Wipe the egg off your face.

Game.Set.Match.
:dumbass:Are you being willfully dense or does this come naturally? There's more to being a leadoff hitter than OBP, unless you worship at the BP shrine. I'll try it again and I'll type slower this time.

Considering OBP ONLY, Pods' overall numbers (not just the last few weeks) are within a relatively small margin from the mean. The difference of 10 pts or so is practically meaningless.

Considering ALL FACTORS, including OBP, steals, PIT/PA, he's above average.

But of course, you don't care about all the factors. You just pick and choose the ones you like. For everything else you use the shoota system.:rolleyes:

SouthSideSid
08-15-2006, 01:58 PM
Aside from A.J. (who I think was the single biggest reason the Sox won it all last year - influence on the pitchers, clutch hits, attitude) Pods was the biggest pickup last year. He set the tone all year at the top of the order - being aggressive and stealing bases. The whole team seemed to run at a little higher RPM last year than this, so far. But, that is not Pods fault. Even with some of the flaws in his game, I wouldn't want anyone else leading off for the Sox this year. (Except against the occassional tough left-hander)

voodoochile
08-15-2006, 02:03 PM
Are you being willfully dense or does this come naturally? There's more to being a leadoff hitter than OBP, unless you worship at the BP shrine. I'll try it again and I'll type slower this time.

Considering OBP ONLY, Pods' overall numbers (not just the last few weeks) are within a relatively small margin from the mean. The difference of 10 pts or so is practically meaningless.

Considering ALL FACTORS, including OBP, steals, PIT/PA, he's above average.

But of course, you don't care about all the factors. You just pick and choose the ones you like. For everything else you use the shoota system.:rolleyes:
Yes, but that's all lineup slot mean. For leadoff hitters, his OBP is bad - really bad. All the other stats are secondary to the primary reason to be the leadoff guy - because you get on base at a very high rate - better than league average by a good percentage. In fact as S=D has already pointed out the mean for leadoff hitters is 8% or so above league average and the best in the league are roughly 20% above league average.

If Pods were hitting 9th his low OBP wouldn't be a problem, as it is, he isn't doing his job and hasn't been for the majority of the season.

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 02:40 PM
Yes, but that's all lineup slot mean. For leadoff hitters, his OBP is bad - really bad. All the other stats are secondary to the primary reason to be the leadoff guy - because you get on base at a very high rate - better than league average by a good percentage. In fact as S=D has already pointed out the mean for leadoff hitters is 8% or so above league average and the best in the league are roughly 20% above league average.

If Pods were hitting 9th his low OBP wouldn't be a problem, as it is, he isn't doing his job and hasn't been for the majority of the season.The mean OBP for all leadoff hitters is .358. Pods was at .351 last year and bounced around that same level this year until about two weeks ago (.348 on Aug 1). If you look at any player, their numbers go up and down over the course of a season (variations of +/- 15 pts are not unusual), and I don't think it's particularly logical to take a low point and assume that's his expected level going forward into the future (which is, after all, what we really care about). Based on the last two years, .350 is a reasonable projection into the future. A difference of 10 pts amounts to getting on base a total of one extra time in a month - a pretty tiny difference. Slightly below average - sure. "Really bad"? No. He's also 5th in the AL in steals and sees an exceptionally high number of pitches, which, IMO, more than offset the small difference in OBP.

Everybody would like him to be Rickey Henderson, but realistically, if you were to replace him with another leadoff hitter from around the league, in most cases the gain in OBP would be offset by the loss in other areas, resulting in no meaningful improvement. This is mostly just a case of the grass looking greener on the other side. There are only a handful who would represent a noticable improvement when you factor in everything.

TornLabrum
08-15-2006, 02:56 PM
I'm going to step in here and request that the rhetoric in this thread be toned down.

1) No one should be called a dumbass for expressing an opinion. That is a violation of the rules. Please consider this to be a friendly reminded. The only time I think this term should ever be used is when somebody acts like an idiot.

2) You don't have to speak more slowly for people to understand you. Again, that's a violation of the rules. Please consider this to also be a friendly reminder.

One of the things that makes this site as successful as it is is that people respect each other here. We just had a gathering last night that proves what that means. Let's work to keep it that way.

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 03:19 PM
I'm going to step in here and request that the rhetoric in this thread be toned down.

1) No one should be called a dumbass for expressing an opinion. That is a violation of the rules. Please consider this to be a friendly reminded. The only time I think this term should ever be used is when somebody acts like an idiot.

2) You don't have to speak more slowly for people to understand you. Again, that's a violation of the rules. Please consider this to also be a friendly reminder.

One of the things that makes this site as successful as it is is that people respect each other here. We just had a gathering last night that proves what that means. Let's work to keep it that way.You are correct. I apologize.

maurice
08-15-2006, 03:44 PM
It's amazing to me that so many people think that SB are completely irrelevant or even bad per se. The same people presumably believe that extra-base hits are good, since they simultaneously complain that Podsednik has little power. This line of thought is irrational, despite the fact that BB subscribes to it.

Granted, many SB attempts + a very low SB% is a bad thing, but a good basestealer often turns a single into a double, etc., even when he's not credited with a SB (see my earlier post in this thread). That's not a bad thing.

It appears that nobody on either side is going to change their minds based on the arguments in this thread. However, it seems that the thread TITLE has been debunked. Podsednik is not losing fan support. The people who hate him now hated him before and the people who liked him before still like him now.
:cool:

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 03:46 PM
It's amazing to me that so many people think that SB are completely irrelevant or even bad per se. The same people presumably believe that extra-base hits are good, since they simultaneously complain that Podsednik has little power. This line of thought is irrational, despite the fact that BB subscribes to it.Thank you for stating the case so succinctly.

Craig Grebeck
08-15-2006, 03:56 PM
It's bad when you're caught stealing as much as Pods is.

maurice
08-15-2006, 04:07 PM
It's bad when you're caught stealing as much as Pods is.

So what's the breaking point? This is a serious question.

You'll concede that Ichiro Suzuki's SB attempts don't hurt his team, correct?

Podsednik is about a 70% base stealer right now, though he was more successful in the past.

How do you determine that 70% is hurtful?

kevin57
08-15-2006, 04:11 PM
I find there's not as much "pop" in PODS' presence on the Sox this year. His defensive work was always an adventure; this year, it's been shocking at times. Some of his numbers are better this year, but that dynamic of getting on 1st leading off and stealing and/or getting over and in are not fueling the Sox offense as in '05.

I do think Kenny needs to "shop him" after this season and see if there's someone whose overall positives are better out there.

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 04:14 PM
It's bad when you're caught stealing as much as Pods is.I guess that must have made Rickey Henderson a real liability to his team. He's the all-time leader in CS.

spiffie
08-15-2006, 04:50 PM
It's amazing to me that so many people think that SB are completely irrelevant or even bad per se. The same people presumably believe that extra-base hits are good, since they simultaneously complain that Podsednik has little power. This line of thought is irrational, despite the fact that BB subscribes to it.

Granted, many SB attempts + a very low SB% is a bad thing, but a good basestealer often turns a single into a double, etc., even when he's not credited with a SB (see my earlier post in this thread). That's not a bad thing.
Here's part of the problem. Pods is getting thrown out over 30% of the time when trying to steal. Among AL #1 hitters with more than 10 SB he ranks dead last in success rate. That's why people speak of extra base hits as better. The chance of a smart baserunner being thrown out going into second is not nearly as high as the chances of a baserunner being thrown out trying to steal. Even if Joey Cora is involved as the 3rd base coach :wink:

Regarding the idea that he is able to turn singles into doubles, that should show up in his OPS number and extra base hits, since all that speed should be making singles into doubles and doubles into triples. But yet with all that speed he ranks in the middle of the pack in terms of doubles and triples. Which wouldn't be so bad except that he adds a lack of HR power as well, hence being nearly dead last in OPS. Even scarier is that he ranks 11th/13 in OPS and is .007 above number 12, but .085 behind number 10. The difference between he and the rest of the pack is gigantic.

But perhaps this number is unfair, as it doesn't quantify the SB factor. Fair enough. Here's an idea. Let's adjust everyone's numbers to factor in SB. Credit everyone with an extra base in their SLG for each stolen base and take one away for each caught stealing. Because as wonderful as Pods getting 2nd without needing anything from the batter is, it's hurtful when he leans wrong and gets picked off without the batter doing anything. In this scenario Podsednik's SLG moves from a .371 up to a .415. Sadly, this doesn't move him up amongst his peers at all, as his adjusted OPS is now .745. This does close the gap between him and the next lowest however, as now he is within .60 of 10th place. Now I recognize this is imperfect. It doesn't take into account the 3-5 extra bases per year from pickoff errors or bad throws that go into the OF. And it doesn't account for those times when someone steals 2nd and 3rd. However, the amount of times such things happen is not likely to have more than a .01-.03 impact either way.

It's not that stolen bases are inessential, it's just that many people overvalue them because they are in their way quite the awesome thing. I love watching Podsednik swipe second base. The problem is that all of Scott's stealing, when you factor in how many times he gets thrown out as well, adds 18 bases for the White Sox, and in and of themselves no more runs as he still needs someone else to drive him in. Someone who hits 5 more home runs per year is already logging more total bases and is guaranteeing his team 5 more runs than those stolen bases of themselves bring. So no, SB are not at all bad things. Being caught stealing is a bad thing. Giving up an out 1/3 of the time when you have hitters like Thome, Konerko, Dye, and Crede waiting behind you is a bad thing. And the amount of good SB's do is not equivalent to the dramatics of them.

All that said, there really are no better options for this team right now. I don't know what Kenny Williams will do in the offseason. But for this year, it's Pods or bust, so Go Scotty Go!

spiffie
08-15-2006, 05:00 PM
I guess that must have made Rickey Henderson a real liability to his team. He's the all-time leader in CS.
If Pods was able to steal anything close to the number of bags Rickey stole, with the efficiency Rickey stole them, this discussion would look a lot different.

Rickey stole bases at an over 80% clip for his career. Let's look at some of Rickey's seasons:
1982 - 130SB, 42 CS - 75%
1983 - 108SB, 19 CS - 85%
1985 - 80SB, 10 CS - 89%
1986 - 87SB, 18 CS - 83%
1988 - 93SB, 13 CS - 88%
1989 - 77SB, 14 CS - 85%
1993 - 53SB, 8 CS - 87%
1998 - 66SB, 13 CS - 84%

So Rickey at 39 years old was a more effective basestealer than Podsednik, and put up a higher OPS. Hell, in the 80's and early 90's Henderson was usually good for anywhere from 12-25 HR per year. If Pods wants to start coming close to Henderson's .820 career OPS he can start anytime now.

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 05:32 PM
Here's part of the problem. Pods is getting thrown out over 30% of the time when trying to steal. Among AL #1 hitters with more than 10 SB he ranks dead last in success rate. That's why people speak of extra base hits as better. The chance of a smart baserunner being thrown out going into second is not nearly as high as the chances of a baserunner being thrown out trying to steal. Even if Joey Cora is involved as the 3rd base coach :wink:

Regarding the idea that he is able to turn singles into doubles, that should show up in his OPS number and extra base hits, since all that speed should be making singles into doubles and doubles into triples. But yet with all that speed he ranks in the middle of the pack in terms of doubles and triples. Which wouldn't be so bad except that he adds a lack of HR power as well, hence being nearly dead last in OPS. Even scarier is that he ranks 11th/13 in OPS and is .007 above number 12, but .085 behind number 10. The difference between he and the rest of the pack is gigantic.

But perhaps this number is unfair, as it doesn't quantify the SB factor. Fair enough. Here's an idea. Let's adjust everyone's numbers to factor in SB. Credit everyone with an extra base in their SLG for each stolen base and take one away for each caught stealing. Because as wonderful as Pods getting 2nd without needing anything from the batter is, it's hurtful when he leans wrong and gets picked off without the batter doing anything. In this scenario Podsednik's SLG moves from a .371 up to a .415. Sadly, this doesn't move him up amongst his peers at all, as his adjusted OPS is now .745. This does close the gap between him and the next lowest however, as now he is within .60 of 10th place. Now I recognize this is imperfect. It doesn't take into account the 3-5 extra bases per year from pickoff errors or bad throws that go into the OF. And it doesn't account for those times when someone steals 2nd and 3rd. However, the amount of times such things happen is not likely to have more than a .01-.03 impact either way.

It's not that stolen bases are inessential, it's just that many people overvalue them because they are in their way quite the awesome thing. I love watching Podsednik swipe second base. The problem is that all of Scott's stealing, when you factor in how many times he gets thrown out as well, adds 18 bases for the White Sox, and in and of themselves no more runs as he still needs someone else to drive him in. Someone who hits 5 more home runs per year is already logging more total bases and is guaranteeing his team 5 more runs than those stolen bases of themselves bring. So no, SB are not at all bad things. Being caught stealing is a bad thing. Giving up an out 1/3 of the time when you have hitters like Thome, Konerko, Dye, and Crede waiting behind you is a bad thing. And the amount of good SB's do is not equivalent to the dramatics of them.

All that said, there really are no better options for this team right now. I don't know what Kenny Williams will do in the offseason. But for this year, it's Pods or bust, so Go Scotty Go!There are a few problems with this analysis.

1. If OPS was the best way to judge leadoff hitters, Jim Thome should be leading off. The problem is that it's skewed by HR's. I don't need my leadoff hitter to hit home runs. I need him to get into scoring position. In fact, given the high percentage of HR hit by leadoff hitters that are likely to be solo HR, you could make a good argument that a double is better, since you're forcing the pitcher to work from the stretch, increasing the odds for the next batter, which tends to lead to extended rallies. Even adding SB to the OPS, it's still skewed by the HR. You're just counting total bases, but not all bases are equally valuable. This is also why OBP tells only part of the story. Getting on first base is fine, but it still is probably going to take two more hits to score a run. Get into scoring position and it takes only one. OTOH, getting caught stealing is not necessarily "running yourself out of an inning" because the chances of scoring from first base is not that high. There's a big gain in getting to second base.

2. You're also falling into the common pitfall of using averages. Averages are very misleading because they hide the underlying distributions. Moreover, the use of averages assumes that the situations are all the same, or at least randomized. Neither is the case. If he's getting thrown out trying to steal when Iguchi is standing at the plate with two strikes and two outs, that's not much of a loss. Game situations also matter. If you're late in a tie game, the underlying distribution of probabilities makes an attempted steal a better bargain, even with the risk of getting thrown out. Similarly, getting into scoring position in the first inning and scoring an early run can set the tone for the whole game. You're just assuming the SB and CS are randomly distributed, but there's no justification for that assumption. In fact, if you watch baseball for any amount of time you can't escape concluding that the opposite is true - the decision to risk a SB is highly dependant on game situations.

3. You're neglecting the effect of the threat to steal a base, which has more to do with the opposing team's perception than it does to the actual success rate. Pickoff errors are more than 3-4 per year. There's also the extra throws to 1B and the fatigue on the pitcher and his loss in concentration. There's the change in pitch selection or use of the slide step which shift the balance in favor the batter. You also have middle infielders moving closer to second base, opening up bigger holes, which also favors the batter. Whether you agree with them or not, opposing pitchers are very concerned whenever Podsednik is on first, and these effects come into play regardless of whether he is caught or not. The propellerheads pooh-pooh these effects because they don't know how to quantify them and they're counter to their perceptions, but they're real and they're significant.

Even the Red Sox finally realized that it made no sense to have the high-OBP, high-OPS Kevin Youkalis leading off, replacing him with Coco Crisp (.325 OBP, .385 SLG).

Craig Grebeck
08-15-2006, 05:47 PM
The benchmark for SB% is probably in the neighborhood of 80%. Pods is below that and IMO it hurts the offense. Three outs are precious, and taking the bat out of Gooch's hands is unnecessary.

1. If OPS was the best way to judge leadoff hitters, Jim Thome should be leading off. The problem is that it's skewed by HR's. I don't need my leadoff hitter to hit home runs. I need him to get into scoring position. In fact, given the high percentage of HR hit by leadoff hitters that are likely to be solo HR, you could make a good argument that a double is better, since you're forcing the pitcher to work from the stretch, increasing the odds for the next batter, which tends to lead to extended rallies. Even adding SB to the OPS, it's still skewed by the HR. You're just counting total bases, but not all bases are equally valuable. This is also why OBP tells only part of the story. Getting on first base is fine, but it still is probably going to take two more hits to score a run. Get into scoring position and it takes only one. OTOH, getting caught stealing is not necessarily "running yourself out of an inning" because the chances of scoring from first base is not that high. There's a big gain in getting to second base.
OPS is the best way to judge hitters, no matter where they hit in the order. Pods may only leadoff once in an entire game, some innings he may come up 3rd or 4th, so I don't really understand why he's compared to other leadoff hitters. He should be compared to other LF, where he comes up incredibly short. Ideally, you want men on base in front of your 3-4-5, and that's why OBP is the most important stat for your 1-2. Speed is nice, but it's not essential. You wouldn't put someone like PK there, but you don't need a track star.
2. You're also falling into the common pitfall of using averages. Averages are very misleading because they hide the underlying distributions. Moreover, the use of averages assumes that the situations are all the same, or at least randomized. Neither is the case. If he's getting thrown out trying to steal when Iguchi is standing at the plate with two strikes and two outs, that's not much of a loss. Game situations also matter. If you're late in a tie game, the underlying distribution of probabilities makes an attempted steal a better bargain, even with the risk of getting thrown out. Similarly, getting into scoring position in the first inning and scoring an early run can set the tone for the whole game. You're just assuming the SB and CS are randomly distributed, but there's no justification for that assumption. In fact, if you watch baseball for any amount of time you can't escape concluding that the opposite is true - the decision to risk a SB is highly dependant on game situations.

And that's why it's foolish to risk outs unless it's late in the ballgame. Stealing bases in the 3rd-4th inning when you have as prolific a lineup as the Sox is senseless. It can kill a rally.

3. You're neglecting the effect of the threat to steal a base, which has more to do with the opposing team's perception than it does to the actual success rate. Pickoff errors are more than 3-4 per year. There's also the extra throws to 1B and the fatigue on the pitcher and his loss in concentration. There's the change in pitch selection or use of the slide step which shift the balance in favor the batter. You also have middle infielders moving closer to second base, opening up bigger holes, which also favors the batter. Whether you agree with them or not, opposing pitchers are very concerned whenever Podsednik is on first, and these effects come into play regardless of whether he is caught or not. The propellerheads pooh-pooh these effects because they don't know how to quantify them and they're counter to their perceptions, but they're real and they're significant.
Could you have one discussion without referring to anyone who uses stats to judge players as propellerheads? These get so heated because you get on your high horse and respond with such snide remarks about how the game is not a statsheet, etc. Yeah, I know. But stats are a useful tool, and the game is no longer full of weak-hitting position players and multiple pitchers with ERA under 3. There are other ways of judging the game than just relying on the old-time baseball theories.

lpneck
08-15-2006, 05:53 PM
Even scarier is that he ranks 11th/13 in OPS and is .007 above number 12, but .085 behind number 10. The difference between he and the rest of the pack is gigantic...

Blah, blah, numbers, blah, more numbers, blah

...Now I recognize this is imperfect. It doesn't take into account the 3-5 extra bases per year from pickoff errors or bad throws that go into the OF. And it doesn't account for those times when someone steals 2nd and 3rd. However, the amount of times such things happen is not likely to have more than a .01-.03 impact either way.

OK, as a former math teacher, and somewhat of a stats geek, I appreciate your attempt to quantify Pods effectiveness. Really, I do.

And I understand he has been frustrating at times this season.

But here are the stats that matter to me for Pods:
World Series walk-off home runs: 1

For that, I'm good with Pods as long as KW is.

spiffie
08-15-2006, 05:56 PM
Blah, blah, numbers, blah, more numbers, blah



OK, as a former math teacher, and somewhat of a stats geek, I appreciate your attempt to quantify Pods effectiveness. Really, I do.

And I understand he has been frustrating at times this season.

But here are the stats that matter to me for Pods:
World Series walk-off home runs: 1

For that, I'm good with Pods as long as KW is.
I assume then that because of this
Damaso Marte World Series Wins: 1
Geoff Blum World Series Game winning home runs: 1
that you are still lamenting the loss of these two players as well, and disagreed with the letting go of those guys?

itsnotrequired
08-15-2006, 05:56 PM
But here are the stats that matter to me for Pods:
World Series walk-off home runs: 1

For that, I'm good with Pods as long as KW is.

This isn't 2005. The past is for cowards and losers.

Craig Grebeck
08-15-2006, 05:58 PM
Blah, blah, numbers, blah, more numbers, blah



OK, as a former math teacher, and somewhat of a stats geek, I appreciate your attempt to quantify Pods effectiveness. Really, I do.

And I understand he has been frustrating at times this season.

But here are the stats that matter to me for Pods:
World Series walk-off home runs: 1

For that, I'm good with Pods as long as KW is.
That's nice and all but it's 2006 and that doesn't give him a free pass to be miserable this year.

Craig Grebeck
08-15-2006, 05:59 PM
I assume then that because of this


that you are still lamenting the loss of these two players as well, and disagreed with the letting go of those guys?
BLUM>>>AROD AROD IS NOT CLUTCH

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 06:02 PM
The benchmark for SB% is probably in the neighborhood of 80%. Pods is below that and IMO it hurts the offense. Three outs are precious, and taking the bat out of Gooch's hands is unnecessary.This is the classic stathead treatment. Who says 80% is the right number? I know exactly where that number came from and it's one of the worst misuses of statistics you'll ever see. Outs are not precious. Runs are precious. Getting into position to score them is one of the most fundamental parts of the game.

OPS is the best way to judge hitters, no matter where they hit in the order. Pods may only leadoff once in an entire game, some innings he may come up 3rd or 4th, so I don't really understand why he's compared to other leadoff hitters. He should be compared to other LF, where he comes up incredibly short. Ideally, you want men on base in front of your 3-4-5, and that's why OBP is the most important stat for your 1-2. Speed is nice, but it's not essential. You wouldn't put someone like PK there, but you don't need a track star.More stathead garbage. Baseball is not so simple that you can judge all players in the lineup by a simple number. What makes a leadoff hitter important is not that he leads off innings - it's that he gets on base and into scoring position ahead of the 3-4-5 hitters. Speed and the ability to steal bases gets him into scoring position more often.

And that's why it's foolish to risk outs unless it's late in the ballgame. Stealing bases in the 3rd-4th inning when you have as prolific a lineup as the Sox is senseless. It can kill a rally.More classic stathead nonsense, backed up by absolutely nothing. It's the tired old Moneyball tripe that has been shown to produce nothing but good teams that never actually win anything. The Sox in 2004 didn't just seem inconsistent, they were. They had the highest standard deviation of runs scored of any team in MLB. They had the highest BA with RISP - and the fewest AB with RISP. If it was all about OPS, they would have been foolish to trade Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik, as most of the statheads argued they were. Turned out pretty good, though. They saw a big increase in BA with RISP and the offense became much more consistent, even though they scored 124 fewer runs.

spiffie
08-15-2006, 06:09 PM
More stathead garbage. Baseball is not so simple that you can judge all players in the lineup by a simple number. What makes a leadoff hitter important is not that he leads off innings - it's that he gets on base and into scoring position ahead of the 3-4-5 hitters. Speed and the ability to steal bases gets him into scoring position more often.
But does it get you on base and into scoring position so often that you score enough runs to offset not being able to bring yourself in? And if you're Pods, and you're on base less often than many other players, and you're a 1/3 chance to be removed from the base rather than advance an extra base, how much benefit are you adding at that point?

More classic stathead nonsense, backed up by absolutely nothing. It's the tired old Moneyball tripe that has been shown to produce nothing but good teams that never actually win anything. The Sox in 2004 didn't just seem inconsistent, they were. They had the highest standard deviation of runs scored of any team in MLB. They had the highest BA with RISP - and the fewest AB with RISP. If it was all about OPS, they would have been foolish to trade Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik, as most of the statheads argued they were. Turned out pretty good, though. They saw a big increase in BA with RISP and the offense became much more consistent, even though they scored 124 fewer runs.
If all that trade had done was to bring in Podsednik and Vizcaino it would have sucked hard. The only reason it worked so well is because it also brought in much greater production with Iguchi and Pierzynski, and strengthened the pitching staff with Hernandez. As a straight up trade it was a mismatch, but it was never intended to be otherwise. That move was made for salary reasons, and Williams turned that flexibility into 3 extremely important pieces. But if that trade is made and we're still starting Willie Harris, Ben Davis, and Arnie Munoz, I don't care if Podsednik steals a million bases and doubles as the Flash on his day off, we're not going anywhere.

And geez, does every post have to be filled with invective? I know that it won't matter since the folks in charge all hate stats and thus will themselves mock anyone who uses them, but really it's unnecessary. You make your points well enough without throwing out terms like "garbage" and "propellorhead".

Craig Grebeck
08-15-2006, 06:10 PM
Do you really think if you paired 05 pitching with 04 offense they'd be mediocre? Because I'm sure they would have faired alright.

gets on base Which Pods does poorly.

steal bases Pods does inefficiently.

More classic stathead nonsense, backed up by absolutely nothing. It's the tired old Moneyball tripe that has been shown to produce nothing but good teams that never actually win anything. The Sox in 2004 didn't just seem inconsistent, they were. They had the highest standard deviation of runs scored of any team in MLB. They had the highest BA with RISP - and the fewest AB with RISP. If it was all about OPS, they would have been foolish to trade Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik, as most of the statheads argued they were. Turned out pretty good, though. They saw a big increase in BA with RISP and the offense became much more consistent, even though they scored 124 fewer runs. The offense was more consistent because they scored so few runs. There was a high deviation because they would score double digits once in a while.

This is the same garbage old school baseball theory that leads to comments like "Pods was the reason we won the WS" and "Pods was the offensive MVP". The White Sox won because of pitching, pitching, pitching.

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 06:28 PM
But does it get you on base and into scoring position so often that you score enough runs to offset not being able to bring yourself in? And if you're Pods, and you're on base less often than many other players, and you're a 1/3 chance to be removed from the base rather than advance an extra base, how much benefit are you adding at that point?


If all that trade had done was to bring in Podsednik and Vizcaino it would have sucked hard. The only reason it worked so well is because it also brought in much greater production with Iguchi and Pierzynski, and strengthened the pitching staff with Hernandez. As a straight up trade it was a mismatch, but it was never intended to be otherwise. That move was made for salary reasons, and Williams turned that flexibility into 3 extremely important pieces. But if that trade is made and we're still starting Willie Harris, Ben Davis, and Arnie Munoz, I don't care if Podsednik steals a million bases and doubles as the Flash on his day off, we're not going anywhere.

And geez, does every post have to be filled with invective? I know that it won't matter since the folks in charge all hate stats and thus will themselves mock anyone who uses them, but really it's unnecessary. You make your points well enough without throwing out terms like "garbage" and "propellorhead".Look, if you want to worship at Billy Beane's feet, knock yourself out. He had one of the best pitching trios in the game and had them locked up cheap and he still never managed to win squat. DePodesta tried to bring the Moneyball prescription to the Dodgers and got shown the door pretty quickly. Ricciardi hasn't had any better luck in Toronto. The Boy Wonder found that a combination of Moneyball + a $120M payroll works pretty well. Obviously, the $120M payroll had nothing to do with it.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Craig Grebeck
08-15-2006, 06:32 PM
Look, if you want to worship at Billy Beane's feet, knock yourself out. He had one of the best pitching trios in the game and had them locked up cheap and he still never managed to win squat. DePodesta tried to bring the Moneyball prescription to the Dodgers and got shown the door pretty quickly. Ricciardi hasn't had any better luck in Toronto. The Boy Wonder found that a combination of Moneyball + a $120M payroll works pretty well. Obviously, the $120M payroll had nothing to do with it.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
It's amazing that you keep bringing up Billy Beane, it really is. No one has mentioned him but you. The conversation is not about Moneyball, it is about the fact that Pods is underperforming and many want him out of here. Stop getting on the defensive just because there is more than one way to run a baseball team.

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 06:44 PM
It's amazing that you keep bringing up Billy Beane, it really is. No one has mentioned him but you. The conversation is not about Moneyball, it is about the fact that Pods is underperforming and many want him out of here. Stop getting on the defensive just because there is more than one way to run a baseball team.I keep bringing up Moneyball because it's the sole means you use to justify "underperforming".
OPS is the best way to judge hitters, no matter where they hit in the order. Outs are precious.Where have I heard this before? Don't embrace it and then pretend to be shocked to be associated with it.

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/60/65/12m.jpg I'm shocked, too.

SoxWillWin
08-15-2006, 07:28 PM
It's amazing that you keep bringing up Billy Beane, it really is. No one has mentioned him but you. The conversation is not about Moneyball, it is about the fact that Pods is underperforming and many want him out of here. Stop getting on the defensive just because there is more than one way to run a baseball team.

Until Kenny Williams wants him out of here everyones opinion is moot. All this arm chair GM'ing is absolutely pointless.

Ol' No. 2
08-15-2006, 07:35 PM
Until Kenny Williams wants him out of here everyones opinion is moot. All this arm chair GM'ing is absolutely pointless.:fobbgod:
Kenny Williams is a chump. Did you hear about how I fleeced him into giving me Chad Bradford for a minor league catcher? Just wait until Jeremy Brown makes it to the major leagues. We might even win a post season series.

maurice
08-15-2006, 08:23 PM
So what's the breaking point? This is a serious question.
You'll concede that Ichiro Suzuki's SB attempts don't hurt his team, correct?
Podsednik is about a 70% base stealer right now, though he was more successful in the past.
How do you determine that 70% is hurtful?

Okay, I got an answer to the 1st question (80%) and an implied answer to the second question (point conceded). Thanks, but I still need an answer to the third question:

Given the serious problems with the statistical valuation of SB, how does one reliably determine that SB% < 80% = bad? Without an answer to this question, the number appears to be completely arbitrary. Again, I certainly agree that SB < X% = bad. I just don't know how you can reasonably compute X.

voodoochile
08-16-2006, 01:26 AM
Okay, I got an answer to the 1st question (80%) and an implied answer to the second question (point conceded). Thanks, but I still need an answer to the third question:

Given the serious problems with the statistical valuation of SB, how does one reliably determine that SB% < 80% = bad? Without an answer to this question, the number appears to be completely arbitrary. Again, I certainly agree that SB < X% = bad. I just don't know how you can reasonably compute X.
Let's give it a whirl by making the following assumptions (based loosely on Pods stats).

A player has a .350 OBP and a .423 slg %.

They have 500 TAB.

That means he has reached base 175 times with 40 walks.

Assuming 95 1B, 28 2B, 4 3B, 8 HR (195 TB).

He has attempted 50 SB.

At an 80% rate, his effective OBP is 165/500 = .330 and his effective slg % is 235/470 = .510. His OPS has jumped by 67 points.

At a 70% rate, his effective OBP is 160/500 = .320 and his effective slg% is 230/475 = .484 and his OPS is still positive over by 31 points compared to a guy with no SB attempts and similar numbers.

At a 60 % rate his effective OBP is 155/500 = .310 and his effective slg% is 225/480 = .469 and his OPS is now roughly the same as if he attempted no SB at all.

When calculating effective SLG% I counted the CS as if he never reached base. Now I'll let the serious stat geeks take it from here...

lpneck
08-16-2006, 09:04 AM
You are mistaking my point:

A.) I am not lamenting the loss of either Marte or Blum... although you will never get me to say a bad thing about either one of them for their contributions to winning a World Championship.

B.) I would not necessarily lament the loss of Podsednik when/if KW decides to go in another direction... but the fact of the matter is that PODS IS STILL HERE. Analyzing his OPS + AVG/CS% x (HBP + SAC) is really pretty moot at this point.

I don't need the numbers to tell me he has been streaky this year, and not as effective at base stealing. (He hasn't been that effective since his injury last year.) If anything, I get more irritatated with his defense.

He hasn't been very good the last 2 weeks, and now everyone wants to throw him under the bus. Along with Mark Buehrle, and Freddy Garcia, and Brian Anderson (oh, wait, you mean he's OK now?), and Javy Vazquez, and Neal Cotts, and Joey Cora.

And in the meantime, with all these "ineffective" parts, the White Sox won the World Series last year, and have won 71 games, with the 2nd best record in baseball this year.

I am completely OK with the group KW has assembled. The Sox will be in the playoffs (yes, possibly as the Wild Card because the Tigers have put together a sick season. Hats off to them if they win 105 games and win the division) and they are a team DESIGNED to win postseason series.

Ol' No. 2
08-16-2006, 10:59 AM
Okay, I got an answer to the 1st question (80%) and an implied answer to the second question (point conceded). Thanks, but I still need an answer to the third question:

Given the serious problems with the statistical valuation of SB, how does one reliably determine that SB% < 80% = bad? Without an answer to this question, the number appears to be completely arbitrary. Again, I certainly agree that SB < X% = bad. I just don't know how you can reasonably compute X.The problem I have with this (and a big part of the problem I have with statheads in general) is that I don't agree that you can compute such a number that will be meaningful. Baseball is a highly situational game. It matters a lot when those SB occur and when those CS occur, and you can't just assume it all evens out. A CS when Iguchi is at the plate with two strikes and two outs is not nearly the same as one in the 6th inning with no outs when you're behind by 3 runs. In a rigorous statistical analysis, in order to assume such things "even out", two tests have to be met:

1. the number of attempts must be large in relation to the number of situational variations, and

2. the decision to attempt a steal must be practically random with respect to the situational variations.

Obviously, neither of those are true.

The other problem is that an attempted steal is not an isolated event - it's related to other events. We all recognize that it affects the pitcher vs. batter outcome in a host of different ways. There are also effects on later events. Once a runner has a reputation, it affects future events in ways that are far too complex to determine. Even if the problems described in my first paragraph were not present, the effects of an attempted steal on other related events would have to be included in the analysis to determine X%, and these are so difficult to determine that it seems highly unlikely to me that you could properly account for them all.

maurice
08-16-2006, 03:21 PM
Thanks, Voodoo. We'd all like Podsednik to steal at a higher rate, but 70% appears to be perfectly acceptable and not harmful to the team.

The problem I have with this (and a big part of the problem I have with statheads in general) is that I don't agree that you can compute such a number that will be meaningful.

I don't think you can either . . . hence my general criticisms of SB stats. OTOH, it would be disingenuous to argue that a very low SB% can (even theoretically) help your team, given enough attempts. At some point, you ARE just throwing away outs. (To provide an extreme example, a fellow with 50 attempts in a single year and a 40% average needs to seriously cut down on his attempts.)

My problem is that people like to throw out an apparently arbitrary number and say that anybody with a SB% less than that is hurting his team. Where's the proof? These people are making an empirical claim without offering any evidence.

Ol' No. 2
08-16-2006, 03:35 PM
Thanks, Voodoo. We'd all like Podsednik to steal at a higher rate, but 70% appears to be perfectly acceptable and not harmful to the team.



I don't think you can either . . . hence my general criticisms of SB stats. OTOH, it would be disingenuous to argue that a very low SB% can (even theoretically) help your team, given enough attempts. At some point, you ARE just throwing away outs. (To provide an extreme example, a fellow with 50 attempts in a single year and a 40% average needs to seriously cut down on his attempts.)

My problem is that people like to throw out an apparently arbitrary number and say that anybody with a SB% less than that is hurting his team. Where's the proof? These people are making an empirical claim without offering any evidence.I think we're saying the same thing from different directions. Saying 40% is too low is so extreme and so ridiculously obvious that it's effectively not saying anything at all.

The number that's often quoted is from a typical BP study in which they used the average runs scored with a runner on first, the average runs scored with a runner on second and the average runs scored with nobody on and calculated a theoretical success rate needed to achieve a net positive result. They came up with a number around 70%. While there's nothing wrong with the math, such an approach is laughably superficial, but unfortunately, characteristic of much of the stathead community. Anyone with a 99 cent calculator thinks he's a statistician.

jenn2080
08-16-2006, 03:39 PM
Hug it out already!:D:

kitekrazy
08-16-2006, 05:09 PM
It's also nice to have a guy on the team that has a good chance of scoring from 1st on a double. There's not a lot of speedsters on this team.