PDA

View Full Version : Dayn Perry: Pods Has Got to Go


SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-25-2006, 07:25 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6305486

I like Perry, who's an astue, SABR-metrically inclined baseball analyst at Foxsports.com and BaseballPropectus.com. He's not against the Garcia or McCarthy deals, but thinks the Sox are in dire need of an upgrade in LF.

Money quote:
"Don't believe it? Absorb this: last season the average AL left fielder hit .280 AVG/.347 OBP/.449 SLG, while Podsednik hit .261 AVG/.330 OBP/.353 SLG. (And keep in mind he's playing in one of baseball's best hitter's parks.) So Podsednik was below positional averages in terms of hitting for average and reaching base (his notional strengths), and he was unconscionably below average in terms of hitting for power (the very thing a corner outfielder must do). Simply put, if the White Sox want to improve in 2007, then a good first step would be to find an adequate left fielder."

Daver
12-25-2006, 07:28 PM
You can find an opinion of Dayn Perry here. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=57075&highlight=Dayn+Perry)

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 07:31 PM
It may be time to replace Pods. Who knows...but Perry has been known to twist facts to try to make Podsednik look worse than he is

spiffie
12-25-2006, 07:34 PM
This is pretty much akin to when the Moron puts up an article that says something correct. The blind squirrel found a nut. Dayn Perry is still an idiot, he's just an idiot who happens to be absolutely correct for once.

ChiTownTrojan
12-25-2006, 07:37 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6305486

I like Perry, who's an astue, SABR-metrically inclined baseball analyst at Foxsports.com and BaseballPropectus.com. He's not against the Garcia or McCarthy deals, but thinks the Sox are in dire need of an upgrade in LF.

Money quote:
"Don't believe it? Absorb this: last season the average AL left fielder hit .280 AVG/.347 OBP/.449 SLG, while Podsednik hit .261 AVG/.330 OBP/.353 SLG. (And keep in mind he's playing in one of baseball's best hitter's parks.) So Podsednik was below positional averages in terms of hitting for average and reaching base (his notional strengths), and he was unconscionably below average in terms of hitting for power (the very thing a corner outfielder must do). Simply put, if the White Sox want to improve in 2007, then a good first step would be to find an adequate left fielder."

Good article. I liked what he said about the McCarthy trade and CF situation. My only beef is his insistence on comparing Podsednik to "corner outfielder standards". Of course he doesn't have the power of the typical corner outfielder. But that's not why he's in the lineup. What does it matter if we're getting power from LF or SS, as long as it's there? Last I checked, the Sox had a pretty good middle of the order, who hit a few homers last year.

Podsednik is paid to get on base and steal bases. Period. He didn't do that very well last year. Hopefully that can be attributed to injuries, and he comes back healthy this year and does his job like it was 2005. If not, we'll be dealing for Ichiro at the deadline.

ChiTownTrojan
12-25-2006, 07:40 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6305486

I like Perry, who's an astue, SABR-metrically inclined baseball analyst at Foxsports.com and BaseballPropectus.com. He's not against the Garcia or McCarthy deals, but thinks the Sox are in dire need of an upgrade in LF.

Money quote:
"Don't believe it? Absorb this: last season the average AL left fielder hit .280 AVG/.347 OBP/.449 SLG, while Podsednik hit .261 AVG/.330 OBP/.353 SLG. (And keep in mind he's playing in one of baseball's best hitter's parks.) So Podsednik was below positional averages in terms of hitting for average and reaching base (his notional strengths), and he was unconscionably below average in terms of hitting for power (the very thing a corner outfielder must do). Simply put, if the White Sox want to improve in 2007, then a good first step would be to find an adequate left fielder."

BTW, how do you pronounce this guys name? Is it "Dan"? Or is it "Dayne" as in Ron Dayne?

spiffie
12-25-2006, 07:41 PM
BTW, how do you pronounce this guys name? Is it "Dan"? Or is it "Dayne" as in Ron Dayne?
I believe, in the words of Jimmy Johnson, it is pronounced, "duh-umm."

The Dude
12-25-2006, 07:46 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6305486

I like Perry, who's an astue, SABR-metrically inclined baseball analyst at Foxsports.com and BaseballPropectus.com. He's not against the Garcia or McCarthy deals, but thinks the Sox are in dire need of an upgrade in LF.

Money quote:
"Don't believe it? Absorb this: last season the average AL left fielder hit .280 AVG/.347 OBP/.449 SLG, while Podsednik hit .261 AVG/.330 OBP/.353 SLG. (And keep in mind he's playing in one of baseball's best hitter's parks.) So Podsednik was below positional averages in terms of hitting for average and reaching base (his notional strengths), and he was unconscionably below average in terms of hitting for power (the very thing a corner outfielder must do). Simply put, if the White Sox want to improve in 2007, then a good first step would be to find an adequate left fielder."

I couldn't agree more! Pods and the leadoff position are the only area of concern regarding the hitting and defense we have going into 2007.

Daver
12-25-2006, 07:55 PM
BTW, how do you pronounce this guys name? Is it "Dan"? Or is it "Dayne" as in Ron Dayne?

It's pronounced Propellerhead.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-25-2006, 08:11 PM
This is pretty much akin to when the Moron puts up an article that says something correct. The blind squirrel found a nut. Dayn Perry is still an idiot, he's just an idiot who happens to be absolutely correct for once.

Why is Perry an idiot??? Because he's SABR-metrically inclined??? You might not agree with everything he has to say, but he generally publishes interesting analysis at FoxSports.com and BaseballProspectus.com. Instead of calling him names (i.e., idiot, moron, etc.), perhaps you ought to EXPLAIN why he's wrong. Some examples, please.

ilsox7
12-25-2006, 08:12 PM
Why is Perry an idiot??? Because he's SABR-metrically inclined??? You might not agree with everything he has to say, but he generally publishes interesting analysis at FoxSports.com and BaseballProspectus.com. Instead of calling him names (i.e., idiot, moron, etc.), perhaps you ought to EXPLAIN why he's wrong. Some examples, please.

Search his name. There have been PLENTY of examples of his idiocy over the last year or two.

southside rocks
12-25-2006, 08:16 PM
"White Sox fans never like to hear this, but Podsednik is one of the most overrated players in recent memory. He's a mediocre defender, he's an inefficient base-stealer, his on-base skills are overstated, and his power by corner outfield standards is simply awful."

Oh dear, once the Commissioner's office reads this, the Sox will have to give back the 2005 trophy! :o:

Sometimes a player is more than his numbers. Pods was an integral part of a winning team in 2005 and he can be an integral part of a winning team again, even though his chances of getting into the HOF are tinier than Dayn's brain.

Daver
12-25-2006, 08:17 PM
Why is Perry an idiot??? Because he's SABR-metrically inclined??? You might not agree with everything he has to say, but he generally publishes interesting analysis at FoxSports.com and BaseballProspectus.com. Instead of calling him names (i.e., idiot, moron, etc.), perhaps you ought to EXPLAIN why he's wrong. Some examples, please.

I gave you a link to why he is an idiot, did you bother to follow it?

HomeFish
12-25-2006, 08:26 PM
Sure, Podsednik is terrible.

But who are we going to put into LF that's any better? Shut up about Podsednik until you can find a replacement to play up.

oeo
12-25-2006, 08:46 PM
White Sox fans never like to hear this, but Podsednik is one of the most overrated players in recent memory. He's a mediocre defender, he's an inefficient base-stealer, his on-base skills are overstated, and his power by corner outfield standards is simply awful.
If he knew Sox fans at all, he would know that we do not feel that way. Every Sox fan and their brother knows that Pods isn't the greatest player of all time. I wouldn't say he's "overrated", though. Who rated him in the first place?

Don't believe it? Absorb this: last season the average AL left fielder hit .280 AVG/.347 OBP/.449 SLG, while Podsednik hit .261 AVG/.330 OBP/.353 SLG. (And keep in mind he's playing in one of baseball's best hitter's parks.) So Podsednik was below positional averages in terms of hitting for average and reaching base (his notional strengths), and he was unconscionably below average in terms of hitting for power (the very thing a corner outfielder must do).
So basically is what he's saying, is we need to put another power hitter in left field? Come on Dayn...we have power throughout our lineup, we don't need our left fielder to hit for power.

It's the festering presence of Podsednik in the everyday lineup that may make it difficult for the Sox to fend off the likes of the Tigers, Twins and Indians in 2007.

Yep, we sure had trouble with them last year.

I think if Pods is our biggest question mark going into the season, we'll do quite alright...he's going to have a good season. Just get on base, that's all I ask.

FedEx227
12-25-2006, 09:02 PM
I'm pretty sure we all agreed that Pods needed to go about 3-4 months ago, before we realized how much is was going to cost. Now when someone presents facts (facts that hes displayed for 3 years now) he's a propellerhead and he's an idiot.

Pods 2005 was great for us, we all can agree to that, but Perry mostly speaks to how Pods does when he's not on the top of his game. In 2004 his 70 steals came at a price of an awful batting average and terrible OBP from the leadoff spot. Which is what we saw in 2006. Add in the fact that percentage-wise his stolen-bases are not mind-blowing.

For every 2.1 stolen bases he was caught stealing.

Compare that to the other top 5 AL SB leaders:
Carl Crawford (6.4)
Chone Figgins (3.25)
Corey Patterson (5)
Ichiro Suzuki (22.5)
Brian Roberts (5.14)

Okay, he had a groin injury, etc, etc. How about AL 2005, I'm sure most of us agree he was a great option for us in 2005 and was no doubt one of the biggest parts of our World Series victory?

Pods (2.56)

Other top 5 AL:
Chone Figgins (3.64)
Carl Crawford (5.75)
Julio Lugo (3.54)
Ichiro Suzuki (4.12)

I don't necessarily agree with him that Pods NEEDS to go, but I do agree with him that Pods is not as great as we would like to make him out to be. With that being said, I'm still a fan of his and think if he could refine the few problems he has he'd be a fantastic option. The fact is, if he gets on base, the caught stealings won't matter quite as much, unfortunately last year we saw what happened when he didn't get on base, and when he did and attempted steals he was caught frequently.

So before you burn me at the stake. Pods isn't overrated, nobody rated him, but don't come down on a guy for presenting facts that Pods is not an ideal LF option for the World Series hopeful Chicago White Sox.

ilsox7
12-25-2006, 09:07 PM
I'm pretty sure we all agreed that Pods needed to go about 3-4 months ago, before we realized how much is was going to cost. Now when someone presents facts (facts that hes displayed for 3 years now) he's a propellerhead and he's an idiot.

Pods 2005 was great for us, we all can agree to that, but Perry mostly speaks to how Pods does when he's not on the top of his game. In 2004 his 70 steals came at a price of an awful batting average and terrible OBP from the leadoff spot. Which is what we saw in 2006. Add in the fact that percentage-wise his stolen-bases are not mind-blowing.



Please do yourself a favor and go back and read some of his past columns. Do a search for threads on him at WSI. Follow the link Daver provided. This joker is not an idiot or propellerhead necessarily b/c of his views on Pods. He has said plenty of things that qualify him for rightfully being called the names he is called.

FedEx227
12-25-2006, 09:09 PM
Please do yourself a favor and go back and read some of his past columns. Do a search for threads on him at WSI. Follow the link Daver provided. This joker is not an idiot or propellerhead necessarily b/c of his views on Pods. He has said plenty of things that qualify him for rightfully being called the names he is called.

Oh I totally agree, I personally can't stand Dayn Perry, because he's in the BP group that is too pompous for their own good. I love Baseball Prospectus and read most of their books, but some of the writers are just complete asses and it shows through their writings.

But calling him an idiot puts him in a category (sports speaking) with Chris Berman, Peter Gammons, Ken Rosenthal, etc. At least Dayn Perry has some basis for what he says, those blowhorns only basis is "I <3 East Coast"

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 09:11 PM
I'm pretty sure we all agreed that Pods needed to go about 3-4 months ago, before we realized how much is was going to cost. Now when someone presents facts (facts that hes displayed for 3 years now) he's a propellerhead and he's an idiot.

Pods 2005 was great for us, we all can agree to that, but Perry mostly speaks to how Pods does when he's not on the top of his game. In 2004 his 70 steals came at a price of an awful batting average and terrible OBP from the leadoff spot. Which is what we saw in 2006. Add in the fact that percentage-wise his stolen-bases are not mind-blowing.

For every 2.1 stolen bases he was caught stealing.

Compare that to the other top 5 AL SB leaders:
Carl Crawford (6.4)
Chone Figgins (3.25)
Corey Patterson (5)
Ichiro Suzuki (22.5)
Brian Roberts (5.14)

Okay, he had a groin injury, etc, etc. How about AL 2005, I'm sure most of us agree he was a great option for us in 2005 and was no doubt one of the biggest parts of our World Series victory?

Pods (2.56)

Other top 5 AL:
Chone Figgins (3.64)
Carl Crawford (5.75)
Julio Lugo (3.54)
Ichiro Suzuki (4.12)

I don't necessarily agree with him that Pods NEEDS to go, but I do agree with him that Pods is not as great as we would like to make him out to be. With that being said, I'm still a fan of his and think if he could refine the few problems he has he'd be a fantastic option. The fact is, if he gets on base, the caught stealings won't matter quite as much, unfortunately last year we saw what happened when he didn't get on base, and when he did and attempted steals he was caught frequently.

So before you burn me at the stake. Pods isn't overrated, nobody rated him, but don't come down on a guy for presenting facts that Pods is not an ideal LF option for the World Series hopeful Chicago White Sox.

Sabrmetrics posters get so defensive.

Perry's not an idiot solely because this article. (Although I'd point out that writing an article about the obvious statement that Pods did not perform well last year doesn't speak highly to his intelligence)

He's an idiot in the same way Mariotti is: Even when he gets something right it's

a.) obvious

b.) despite himself

SoxFanPrope
12-25-2006, 09:16 PM
Doesn't this guy have numerous articles bashing Pods?

ilsox7
12-25-2006, 09:18 PM
Doesn't this guy have numerous articles bashing Pods?

That would be like saying John Grisham has numerous books about law.

SoxFanPrope
12-25-2006, 09:23 PM
That would be like saying John Grisham has numerous books about law.

:roflmao:
:pods:
"What the **** did I do?"

UserNameBlank
12-25-2006, 09:50 PM
If he knew Sox fans at all, he would know that we do not feel that way. Every Sox fan and their brother knows that Pods isn't the greatest player of all time. I wouldn't say he's "overrated", though. Who rated him in the first place?


So basically is what he's saying, is we need to put another power hitter in left field? Come on Dayn...we have power throughout our lineup, we don't need our left fielder to hit for power.



Yep, we sure had trouble with them last year.

I think if Pods is our biggest question mark going into the season, we'll do quite alright...he's going to have a good season. Just get on base, that's all I ask.

To whoever defended this guy because he's a stathead, it's not just because he is a stathead it is because he is only a stathead. He can't actually watch major league baseball games because if he did he wouldn't be such an idiot.

As just pointed out above, the Sox need a leadoff hitter. Now, Ozzie and KW's organizational philosophy differ greatly from that of notorious Pods-hater Perry. I think the only thing the two parties would actually agree on is OBP is important, but besides that, the Sox probably think this guy is an idiot, too.

KW and Ozzie built a WS Championship team based off of their offensive philosophy, which is, as best I can tell, this:
1. Get on base
2. Hit home runs
3. Clutch hitting
4. Use the SB/fundamentals to manufacture runs
5. Use the threat of the SB to your advantage

Moron Perry sees 1-3 only. Additionally, he probably subscribes to the line of thinking that says a leadoff hitter, if he has speed and is used to steal, should only play either 2B, SS, or CF because a team needs power and OBP at every single other position besides C. This guy is a turd for thinking that. Would it be great if the Sox had Rafael Furcal, Brian Roberts, or Rocco Baldelli? Sure it would. But just the fact that I can only name a few superstar players that fit that description show how rare these guys are.

Note to turdman: if you have a very good leadoff hitter (like Ichiro for example, who Dayn also thinks is overrated for some reason) it doesn't make a damn bit of difference where he plays when you have names like Dye, Thome, Konerko, and Crede sitting 3-6 in your lineup.

UserNameBlank
12-25-2006, 10:00 PM
I'm pretty sure we all agreed that Pods needed to go about 3-4 months ago, before we realized how much is was going to cost. Now when someone presents facts (facts that hes displayed for 3 years now) he's a propellerhead and he's an idiot.

I don't necessarily agree with him that Pods NEEDS to go, but I do agree with him that Pods is not as great as we would like to make him out to be. With that being said, I'm still a fan of his and think if he could refine the few problems he has he'd be a fantastic option. The fact is, if he gets on base, the caught stealings won't matter quite as much, unfortunately last year we saw what happened when he didn't get on base, and when he did and attempted steals he was caught frequently.

So before you burn me at the stake. Pods isn't overrated, nobody rated him, but don't come down on a guy for presenting facts that Pods is not an ideal LF option for the World Series hopeful Chicago White Sox.

The guy has hated Pods forever, ever since KW picked him up. Overrated this, no power that. **** Dayn Perry. Every other time he wrote something negative about the guy he was wrong, and now he's writing something negative again following a disappointing year, which is only pointing out the obvious and, to me, sounds a lot more like an "I told you so" than anything else.

The fact is, Pods was great in 2005, especially in the first half, and the Sox wouldn't have a trophy if not for him. Everyone knows Pods needs to rebound, and everyone knows that the Sox are somewhat doubtful that he will since we were rumored to be at least interested in every leadoff man available this offseason.

Edit: One more thing to add. If the guy wants to write something about Pods, why can't he write something that, at least in relation to the contracts offered to Dave Roberts, Juan Pierre, and Gary Matthews, Pods was a bargain and a possible steal? If nothing else, the Sox have Sweeney and to a lesser extent Owens, Fields, and Terrero, and enough minor leaguers to pick up someone else if need be. With a $3mil contract, even if Pods blows he won't screw the Sox financially like some of these other guys have the potential to do.

TomBradley72
12-25-2006, 10:10 PM
Pods Post All Star Break 2005: .284 BA/.326 OBP/15 for 29 in SB's
Pods Entire Season of 2006: .261 BA/.330 OBP/40 for 59 in SB's
Total Over 749 AB's: .268 BA/.328 OBP/63% SB Percentage
(his OBP was 7th among WSox "regulars"...even worse than AJ and Machowiak...while playing mediocre defense, with a below average arm and little power)

He's not going to return to his 1st half 2005 greatness....big mistake counting on him as a major contributor in 2007...and at age 31...he's not going to get better. Very appreciative of his contribution to the 2005 champs..but he's shaping up as one of the worst starting OF's in the AL.

FedEx227
12-25-2006, 10:15 PM
Every other time he wrote something negative about the guy he was wrong, and now he's writing something negative again following a disappointing year, which is only pointing out the obvious and, to me, sounds a lot more like an "I told you so" than anything else.
He's wrote many times that for a leadoff hitter his OBP is not great and that his SB% is quite subpar comapred to his counterparts...

Was he wrong?

Pods Post All Star Break 2005: .284 BA/.326 OBP/15 for 29 in SB's
Pods Entire Season of 2006: .261 BA/.330 OBP/40 for 59 in SB's
Total Over 749 AB's: .268 BA/.328 OBP/63% SB Percentage
(his OBP was 7th among WSox "regulars"...even worse than AJ and Machowiak...while playing mediocre defense, with a below average arm and little power)

Stop using numbers, he was apart of the 2005 World Series team that's all that matters!

jabrch
12-25-2006, 10:17 PM
Dayn Perry? Ha Ha Ha...


Scott has put up 1 great season, 1 very good season, and two bad seasons in the past 4 years. For about 2mm, he's one of the better bargains of LFs in Major League baseball with much more upside to that value than most guys out there.

I'd rather have Pods for 2mm than be stuck with JD Drew for 15mm. I'd rather have Pods for 2mm than have just paid 16mm for Carlos Lee. Brad Wilkerson SUCKS. Pedro Feliz blows. You want Phil Nevin? I'd take him over Rondell White.

He's not my #1 choice - but he's not nearly as bad as Dayn Perry has been crusading to sell him as for years.

jabrch
12-25-2006, 10:22 PM
Why is Dayn Perry one of the worst people out there right now with a column?

Read this...
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=62180&highlight=Dayn+Perry

He said Pods is not good because he doesn't hit HRs.

He also said that the Sox vs Anaheim series lost all legitimacy due to Eddings call.

He's a complete assbag.

It's not because he uses stats. It's because he doesn't understand the game.

UserNameBlank
12-25-2006, 10:22 PM
Pods Post All Star Break 2005: .284 BA/.326 OBP/15 for 29 in SB's
Pods Entire Season of 2006: .261 BA/.330 OBP/40 for 59 in SB's
Total Over 749 AB's: .268 BA/.328 OBP/63% SB Percentage
(his OBP was 7th among WSox "regulars"...even worse than AJ and Machowiak...while playing mediocre defense, with a below average arm and little power)

He's not going to return to his 1st half 2005 greatness....big mistake counting on him as a major contributor in 2007...and at age 31...he's not going to get better. Very appreciative of his contribution to the 2005 champs..but he's shaping up as one of the worst starting OF's in the AL.

2003: .314/.379/.443, 43 SB, 10 CS
2004: .244/.313/.364, 70 SB, 13 CS
2005: .290/.351/.349, 59 SB, 23 CS
2006: .261/.330/.353, 40 SB, 19 CS

The only thing I see from the stats that really jumps out is that he is really good every other year. Lets see how he does in 2007.

If Pods runs with confidence I think he will still put up another big SB season again, past injuries be damned. When Pods is confident and on, it is more about the good leads and jumps he gets than anything else. I can't even recall how many times last year where it looked like Pods was scared to steal a base.

As I posted in an above response, at worst Pods sucks and the Sox are out $3mil. If he has a good year though, the Sox will have gotten a real bargain.

Also, someone said something about Pods' not being an efficient basestealer. Maybe that would be a factor on a team with better fundamental players, but on the Sox who in 2006 couldn't advance a runner with a bunt to save their lives, I'll take my chances giving up a few extra outs compared to a better player in return for an opportunity with RISP.

UserNameBlank
12-25-2006, 10:32 PM
He's wrote many times that for a leadoff hitter his OBP is not great and that his SB% is quite subpar comapred to his counterparts...

Was he wrong?



Stop using numbers, he was apart of the 2005 World Series team that's all that matters!

Look, you can throw out all the stats you want since you're bound to find a few to fit your argument. The fact is, the Sox would not have won in 2005 with Manny Ramirez in LF, and that is about as big of an offensive replacement as you can get. How many times did the Sox win games by one or two runs, and how many of those games did the Sox win largely in part due to Podsednik getting a big SB to set up a 1-out RBI-groundout/SAC fly the same inning?

Maybe you're missing the point. Podsednik's value in 2005 to me showed how great the value of a leadoff man is. Dayn Perry is saying the Sox need MORE OBP and MORE POWER, and implying that because his SB percentage is poorer than some other, better players he will be a waste. It would be one thing if he came out saying "the Sox should have signed Juan Pierre" or "the Sox should have traded for Carl Crawford," in which case he would actually be making an agrument.

Jjav829
12-25-2006, 10:43 PM
Meh, he doesn't say anything that hasn't been said by many posters on this board. And, like Perry or not, he does make a valid point. Of course, the issue is that it's not as simple as just replacing him. You have to actually find a better player to replace Pods. I'd love to just put Grazy Sizemore in center field and take care of a couple problems, but unfortunately it's not that easy. Good leadoff hitters are hard to find, and when teams do find the real good ones, they tend not to want to give them up (I wonder why).

FedEx227
12-25-2006, 10:46 PM
Maybe you're missing the point. Podsednik's value in 2005 to me showed how great the value of a leadoff man is. Dayn Perry is saying the Sox need MORE OBP and MORE POWER, and implying that because his SB percentage is poorer than some other, better players he will be a waste. It would be one thing if he came out saying "the Sox should have signed Juan Pierre" or "the Sox should have traded for Carl Crawford," in which case he would actually be making an agrument.

I agree, which is one reason why I don't respect Baseball Prospectus all that much, which I did mention above. While I do read all their stuff I hate the fact that they don't give a viable replacement, they just say "this is bad, this is why". I totally agree with everything your saying and I'm defending Perry in this argument because Sox fans are quick to jump on anybody who bad-mouths any part of the White Sox organization.

Pods was a HUGE part of the 05 World Series, I've said that time and time again. However, seeing the direction this team is going in, Pods is not the ideal LFer that a Carl Crawford type player would be. However, I totally understand that under the financial burden Pods makes sense.

People keep attacking me like I'm saying "Get rid of Pods now, he's awful, get some big ass power guy". I'm not though, I agree with Perry in that Pods will be a huge question mark coming into this year and probably the key to the Sox success next season. I've accepted that he will be our LFer and I do support KW's decision based on finances and past success. I just can't stand people jumping on Perry and calling him an idiot when he's only pointing out what a majority of Sox fans (WSIers included) said only 4-5 months ago when it was fashionable.

Tragg
12-25-2006, 10:54 PM
What the SOX need from Pods is to get on base - that's really it. We have so much power in the 3/4 slots that they just need people to drive in. Sure it would be nice if he could hit more doubles - but it's not that critical in his position. Steals distract the pitcher, but the extra base isn't all that critical with this lineup.
So he just needs to work more counts jump on base and be there when Konkero and Thome arrive....and for Iguchi too.
An upgrade would be nice. But with whom? Baldelli? Please - that's a downgrade. If a good deal arrives take it - until then, hope he gets back to .350 OBP and Sweeney et al continue to develop.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 10:57 PM
Meh, he doesn't say anything that hasn't been said by many posters on this board. And, like Perry or not, he does make a valid point. Of course, the issue is that it's not as simple as just replacing him. You have to actually find a better player to replace Pods. I'd love to just put Grazy Sizemore in center field and take care of a couple problems, but unfortunately it's not that easy. Good leadoff hitters are hard to find, and when teams do find the real good ones, they tend not to want to give them up (I wonder why).

The problem is: who on earth doesn't know Pods had a lousy year?

Even Mariotti probably understands that.

Hey! I wrote an article detailing how Uribe is a bad hitter and that his offense isn't good......

Jjav829
12-25-2006, 11:00 PM
The problem is: who on earth doesn't know Pods had a lousy year?


So does every column have to present something new? I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't follow the White Sox very closely who may not know much about Scott Podsednik. If you're going to criticize every column that doesn't present something completely new, well, you're going to be doing a hell of a lot of criticizing.

Besides, the Podsednik portion was about 1/6th of the column and was all the way at the bottom. The main theme of the column was the pitching moves KW has made this offseason.

mccoydp
12-25-2006, 11:01 PM
I agree with his take on Pods, but Dayn Perry=asshat.

SoxSpeed22
12-25-2006, 11:01 PM
Although, you do have to admit that without getting on base, and causing pressure on the pitchers and defenses, Pods is rather useless. Pods was an atrocious bunter last year, hopefully he'll do better this year. And if he became more of a slap hitter, that could help too. Too many times, there were none on and 2 out for JD or Jim.
That's why I wanted Michael Young so badly, because he can get on base and hit to all sides of the field. They could have used that at the #2 spot and drop Iguchi in the order, just in case the production at the lead-off spot was like last year.

UserNameBlank
12-25-2006, 11:02 PM
I agree, which is one reason why I don't respect Baseball Prospectus all that much, which I did mention above. While I do read all their stuff I hate the fact that they don't give a viable replacement, they just say "this is bad, this is why". I totally agree with everything your saying and I'm defending Perry in this argument because Sox fans are quick to jump on anybody who bad-mouths any part of the White Sox organization.

Pods was a HUGE part of the 05 World Series, I've said that time and time again. However, seeing the direction this team is going in, Pods is not the ideal LFer that a Carl Crawford type player would be. However, I totally understand that under the financial burden Pods makes sense.

People keep attacking me like I'm saying "Get rid of Pods now, he's awful, get some big ass power guy". I'm not though, I agree with Perry in that Pods will be a huge question mark coming into this year and probably the key to the Sox success next season. I've accepted that he will be our LFer and I do support KW's decision based on finances and past success. I just can't stand people jumping on Perry and calling him an idiot when he's only pointing out what a majority of Sox fans (WSIers included) said only 4-5 months ago when it was fashionable.

I agree with all of this. The other thing the got me though, and to me really shows that this guy hates Pods, is that he's so quick to point out Pods as a key to a possible downfall.

He does say Anderson will improve and I think he will also, but to not mention Uribe who has been on the downfall, or Sisco who came off a terrible year, or Floyd who is at most two bad years away from being called a major bust, or the fact that none of our potential 5th starters besides Floyd have even a few games of MLB starting experience is either lack or knowledge/research or a bias against Pods.

People are calling Dayn an idiot because he will attack a player but never look at the piece of the puzzle the player fits into, and the whole scenario around him. Just like the salary concerns, necessity of a leadoff hitter, etc. He also doesn't mention viable alternatives, and the reason is IMO, if he did any research at all he'd know that the Sox at present time do not have one and can not get one without taking longterm risks that are even greater than Pods is right now.

TheOldRoman
12-25-2006, 11:10 PM
Ah, once again, Pods sucks because he doesn't have any power. If there is one thing we lacked last year, it was more homeruns. If only we could have gotten a power hitting LF, we would have taken it all. Maybe Konerko can bat leadoff.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 11:11 PM
So does every column have to present something new? I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't follow the White Sox very closely who may not know much about Scott Podsednik. If you're going to criticize every column that doesn't present something completely new, well, you're going to be doing a hell of a lot of criticizing.

Besides, the Podsednik portion was about 1/6th of the column and was all the way at the bottom. The main theme of the column was the pitching moves KW has made this offseason.

I didn't start the thread---I don't go looking for stupid columns...but yeah I think that a column should present something "newsworthy"

Essentially the Podsednik info in this column is Perry using sabrmetrics to explain how a .260 hitter is a bad choice for the leadoff spot this year...

I'm not exactly sure how that's noteworthy at all, even if no one in the world outside of Chicago knows much about Podsednik

Jjav829
12-25-2006, 11:18 PM
I didn't start the thread---I don't go looking for stupid columns...but yeah I think that a column should present something "newsworthy"

Essentially the Podsednik info in this column is Perry using sabrmetrics to explain how a .260 hitter is a bad choice for the leadoff spot this year...

I'm not exactly sure how that's noteworthy at all, even if no one in the world outside of Chicago knows much about Podsednik

It's a column. It doesn't have to be "newsworthy." It's an opinion. It's not his job to break news, but simply to give his opinion. His opinion is that the Sox haven't done enough to improve this offseason. And 150 or so of the approximately 930 words in the column are about the left field situation, which he feels needs to be improved. It's one little blip in a column that is being overblown because people love to bitch.

SluggersAway
12-25-2006, 11:22 PM
The only thing surprising about this article is that Danks is prone to giving up the long-ball just like McCarthy. I had not heard that before.

The rest makes me yawn like turkey after Thanksgiving dinner.

santo=dorf
12-25-2006, 11:26 PM
Ah, once again, Pods sucks because he doesn't have any power. If there is one thing we lacked last year, it was more homeruns. If only we could have gotten a power hitting LF, we would have taken it all. Maybe Konerko can bat leadoff.
Power isn't just home runs. He's talking about his slugging percentage.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 12:21 AM
Power isn't just home runs. He's talking about his slugging percentage.

Which is also wholly irrelevant. If Pods hits like he has in 2005 or 2003, I don't care if he doesn't have one single XBH all year.

Winning baseball teams are well constructed in terms of roles and responsibilities. They aren't just the sum of the statistics of the parts. The system Ozzie has puts the honus on the leadoff hitter to get himself into scoring position. He gets on - and he steals second. That's the plan.

fquaye149
12-26-2006, 12:23 AM
It's a column. It doesn't have to be "newsworthy." It's an opinion. It's not his job to break news, but simply to give his opinion. His opinion is that the Sox haven't done enough to improve this offseason. And 150 or so of the approximately 930 words in the column are about the left field situation, which he feels needs to be improved. It's one little blip in a column that is being overblown because people love to bitch.

fair enough.

the big thing is it's perry.

It's like if Mariotti writes about JR...it doesn't matter how correct he is...both columnists seem to have an axe to grind

Beautox
12-26-2006, 01:23 AM
I don't particularly care for Perry, but hes right, we need a new leadoff hitter that gets on base infront of Thome, Dye and Konerko.

My suggestions would be the following:

Send LHP Boone Logan (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/L/Boone-Logan.shtml) and possibly LHP Heath Phillips (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Heath-Phillips.shtml) to the Angels for OF Reggie Willits (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/W/Reggie-Willits.shtml). Both Logan and Phillips put up put up impressive campaigns at AAA, but as it stands now both look to be shut out of the BP and rotation respectively. Seeing how KW and Ozzie want a nasty(95+ with good secondary power pitches) bull pen; Logan doesn't fit into that. Both Gio and Danks have higher ceilings and raw "stuff" as starters than Heath so that takes him down the depth chart quite a bit.

Willits isn't a top 20 prospect with the Angels and hes a little old to wear the prospect tag(25). He has never repeated a level and has an good glove in CF, i would imagine he would be even better in LF. Last year he led all of MILB in OBP(.448) and when he was brought up to the major league level he showed it wasn't a fluke(11BB/10SO), he can also steal bases(31SB/15CS) @ AAA, he has the speed its now a matter of technique. Lastly hes a switch hitter, and i think there might be a bit of rivalry between him and Fields (University of Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State University)

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_435065.jpg

The reason a trade like this could work for both the white sox and angels is because both KW and Stoneman have shown this offseason they aren't afraid to make a baseball trade(McCarthy for Danks & Kevin Gregg for Chris Resop). The angels have their lead off hitter in Figgins and LF and CF are pretty packed. An organizational weakness at the moment for them is LHP, they just traded Donnelly for AAAA Phil Seibel.

Finally since the rox acquired Willy Taveras, that would take them out of the market for someone like Podsednik. But the Padres lost Roberts to FA and have a horrible platoon of Cruz and Sledge, i think the sox could pick up some projectable arms and maybe sleeper 'spec Kyle Blanks (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Kyle-Blanks.shtml).


anyways thats just my .02

TheVulture
12-26-2006, 02:45 AM
Ah, once again, Pods sucks because he doesn't have any power. If there is one thing we lacked last year, it was more homeruns. If only we could have gotten a power hitting LF, we would have taken it all. Maybe Konerko can bat leadoff.
That and because he's one of the worst defensive outfielders in the game. No defense and no stick - not a good combo.

wassagstdu
12-26-2006, 09:22 AM
Of course he doesn't have the power of the typical corner outfielder. But that's not why he's in the lineup. What does it matter if we're getting power from LF or SS, as long as it's there? Last I checked, the Sox had a pretty good middle of the order, who hit a few homers last year.

Podsednik is paid to get on base and steal bases. Period. He didn't do that very well last year. Hopefully that can be attributed to injuries, and he comes back healthy this year and does his job like it was 2005. If not, we'll be dealing for Ichiro at the deadline.
You took the words right out of my keyboard. His first half in 2005 was, in my opinion, more responsible for the Sox' pennant than any other (offensive) player. For that reason he is my 2005 offensive MVP. Then he was injured and has yet to recover fully. Maybe he won't. But he deserves the chance in 2007, and he deserves the support of Sox fans.

ondafarm
12-26-2006, 10:03 AM
I don't particularly care for Perry, but hes right, we need a new leadoff hitter that gets on base infront of Thome, Dye and Konerko.

My suggestions would be the following:

Send LHP Boone Logan (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/L/Boone-Logan.shtml) and possibly LHP Heath Phillips (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Heath-Phillips.shtml) to the Angels for OF Reggie Willits (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/W/Reggie-Willits.shtml). Both Logan and Phillips put up put up impressive campaigns at AAA, but as it stands now both look to be shut out of the BP and rotation respectively. Seeing how KW and Ozzie want a nasty(95+ with good secondary power pitches) bull pen; Logan doesn't fit into that. Both Gio and Danks have higher ceilings and raw "stuff" as starters than Heath so that takes him down the depth chart quite a bit.

Willits isn't a top 20 prospect with the Angels and hes a little old to wear the prospect tag(25). He has never repeated a level and has an good glove in CF, i would imagine he would be even better in LF. Last year he led all of MILB in OBP(.448) and when he was brought up to the major league level he showed it wasn't a fluke(11BB/10SO), he can also steal bases(31SB/15CS) @ AAA, he has the speed its now a matter of technique. Lastly hes a switch hitter, and i think there might be a bit of rivalry between him and Fields (University of Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State University)

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_435065.jpg

The reason a trade like this could work for both the white sox and angels is because both KW and Stoneman have shown this offseason they aren't afraid to make a baseball trade(McCarthy for Danks & Kevin Gregg for Chris Resop). The angels have their lead off hitter in Figgins and LF and CF are pretty packed. An organizational weakness at the moment for them is LHP, they just traded Donnelly for AAAA Phil Seibel.

Finally since the rox acquired Willy Taveras, that would take them out of the market for someone like Podsednik. But the Padres lost Roberts to FA and have a horrible platoon of Cruz and Sledge, i think the sox could pick up some projectable arms and maybe sleeper 'spec Kyle Blanks (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Kyle-Blanks.shtml).


anyways thats just my .02

That's an interesting trade you propose. You realize you wouldn't be taking his advice either because there is no way Willits would be meeting the author's average corner outfielder numbers either. I do think the Sox need another possible lead-off hitter and either home-grow one or acquire one. Not sure the Angels have given up on the man just yet though.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 11:14 AM
In Dayn Perry's world, there is a formula to winning. If you don't follow that formula, and execute on it flawlessly, you won't win. So your leadoff hitter, according to Dayn, has to have a high OBP - or you can't win. (exaggeration - but the point is still there)

Leadoff Hitters in the WS the past 5 years and their OBP
Eckstein - .351
Granderson - .288
Pods - .351
Biggio - .325
Damon - .380
Renteria - .327
Pierre - .361
Soriano - .338
Lofton - .351
Eckstein - .363

So, other than Damon, there isn't a single leadoff hitter on a WS team that got on base more than 18 times in a season over Pods worst year (2006), 11 times more than his career average, and 6 times more than his 2005 year. None of them, including Damon, got on base more than he did in 2003 - but lets disregard that.

Having a .363 OBP, would put you in second place on the list of WS leadoff hitters in the past 5 years. It would mean getting on base a total of 19.8 times more than getting on base at a .330 clip. Pods scored 86 runs and was on base 233 times (137H+96BB) - that's a Scoring Rate of 37%. So if you add in 20 extra times on base, it translates to about 7 runs per season.

7 freaking runs per season...that's the difference between Pods 2006 and the second best World Series leadoff hitter in the past 5 years. Pods does not need to go. DAYN PERRY needs to go.

spiffie
12-26-2006, 11:55 AM
In Dayn Perry's world, there is a formula to winning. If you don't follow that formula, and execute on it flawlessly, you won't win. So your leadoff hitter, according to Dayn, has to have a high OBP - or you can't win. (exaggeration - but the point is still there)

Leadoff Hitters in the WS the past 5 years and their OBP
Eckstein - .351 (.694)
Granderson - .288 (.773)
Pods - .351 (.700)
Biggio - .325 (.793)
Damon - .380 (.857)
Renteria - .327 (.731)
Pierre - .361 (.734)
Soriano - .338 (.863)
Lofton - .351 (.764)
Eckstein - .363 (.751)

So, other than Damon, there isn't a single leadoff hitter on a WS team that got on base more than 18 times in a season over Pods worst year (2006), 11 times more than his career average, and 6 times more than his 2005 year. None of them, including Damon, got on base more than he did in 2003 - but lets disregard that.

Having a .363 OBP, would put you in second place on the list of WS leadoff hitters in the past 5 years. It would mean getting on base a total of 19.8 times more than getting on base at a .330 clip. Pods scored 86 runs and was on base 233 times (137H+96BB) - that's a Scoring Rate of 37%. So if you add in 20 extra times on base, it translates to about 7 runs per season.

7 freaking runs per season...that's the difference between Pods 2006 and the second best World Series leadoff hitter in the past 5 years. Pods does not need to go. DAYN PERRY needs to go.
Setting aside Dayn Perry's rather myopic analysis, your list of players actually allows a concise way to show why Podsednik is deficient compared to the other leadoff hitters. I added the OPS for those hitters into your original post. If you look at that list Pods comes in second worst, behind only the insanely overrated David Eckstein's 2006 season. Even in his good year of 2005, his OPS was 66 points below the average of the group (.766). And lest someone say the numbers are skewed, the median is 757.5 which Pods was still significantly below.

The thing with that list is that it is not as if he's being measured against a group of big power guys. Only Soriano had a SLG over 500 in the group. For a guy as fast as Podsednik he gets a ridiculously low amount of doubles and triples. I'm not asking him to get the 40 HR of Soriano. I'm asking him to get the 40 2B that Craig Biggio got in 2005 despite being 39 years old.

Frater Perdurabo
12-26-2006, 12:29 PM
So who shouuld KW acquire or sign to play left field?

Matthews, Jr. for $10 million per season? :kukoo:

Pierre for $8.8 million per season? :kukoo:

Soriano for $17 million per season? :kukoo:

Given what has been available on the free agent market and/or dangled from other teams, Pods at his salary is a good value for the money.

KW has acquired enough quality pitchers to acquire a leadoff hitter and/or a thumper ad midseason if he wants/needs to do so.

santo=dorf
12-26-2006, 01:33 PM
Which is also wholly irrelevant. If Pods hits like he has in 2005 or 2003, I don't care if he doesn't have one single XBH all year.

Using your logic you would rather have 2006 Podsednik over Carl Crawford. :?: :o:

Pods' 2006 OBP: .330
Carl's Career OBP: .326

Apparently you would rather have a bad Podsednik over WSI's man crush, Carl Crawford.

Flight #24
12-26-2006, 01:43 PM
In Dayn Perry's world, there is a formula to winning. If you don't follow that formula, and execute on it flawlessly, you won't win. So your leadoff hitter, according to Dayn, has to have a high OBP - or you can't win. (exaggeration - but the point is still there)

Leadoff Hitters in the WS the past 5 years and their OBP


Sorry jabrch, but your analysis has gone awry. If you recreate your analysis using the "best team" instead of the rather arbitrarily determined "WS champion", you'll find that there's a strong correlation between Perry's analysis and the real champs each year.

And no, there's no teal there because Dayn would actually believe that.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 02:12 PM
Setting aside Dayn Perry's rather myopic analysis, your list of players actually allows a concise way to show why Podsednik is deficient compared to the other leadoff hitters. I added the OPS for those hitters into your original post.

And right there - you lost me spiffe. I don't care about my leadoff hitter's OPS any more than I do about my pitchers range factor. I really don't. The components of OPS outside of OBP and BA are irrelevant, in my eyes.

Measure your 3/4/5/6 hitters by OPS - and I am fine with that. But the fact that Pods doesn't get lots of XBH means nothing to me.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 02:13 PM
Using your logic you would rather have 2006 Podsednik over Carl Crawford. :?: :o:

Pods' 2006 OBP: .330
Carl's Career OBP: .326

Apparently you would rather have a bad Podsednik over WSI's man crush, Carl Crawford.

No - that's not my logic at all. I'm not one of those OBP guys. I'm just putting the math together. I'd much rather have Crawford. All I am saying is that Pods defficiencies don't preclude us from making the World Series - and we have 9 of 10 the last 10 WS Leadoff hitters to look at as proof.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 02:14 PM
Sorry jabrch, but your analysis has gone awry. If you recreate your analysis using the "best team" instead of the rather arbitrarily determined "WS champion", you'll find that there's a strong correlation between Perry's analysis and the real champs each year.

And no, there's no teal there because Dayn would actually believe that.

Ah yes - the best team. Well - I don't give a damn about being the best team. I want to win the WS again.

spiffie
12-26-2006, 02:42 PM
And right there - you lost me spiffe. I don't care about my leadoff hitter's OPS any more than I do about my pitchers range factor. I really don't. The components of OPS outside of OBP and BA are irrelevant, in my eyes.

Measure your 3/4/5/6 hitters by OPS - and I am fine with that. But the fact that Pods doesn't get lots of XBH means nothing to me.
If you had said home runs, I might have nodded in agreement here. But unless I missed something where leadoff hitters get a penalty for anything more than a single, this makes absolutely no sense at all. If your supposed speed guy can't speed his way to some doubles and triples, he is not doing his job. If all you can contribute is getting to first base, you damn well better be getting there A LOT. And Pods doesn't do that.

Basically your analysis is "well, Podsednik doesn't get on base that much less than most other leadoff guys, and it doesn't matter if they do better than him at SLG since they're all leadoff guys."

ondafarm
12-26-2006, 03:34 PM
The thing with that list is that it is not as if he's being measured against a group of big power guys. Only Soriano had a SLG over 500 in the group. For a guy as fast as Podsednik he gets a ridiculously low amount of doubles and triples. I'm not asking him to get the 40 HR of Soriano. I'm asking him to get the 40 2B that Craig Biggio got in 2005 despite being 39 years old.

Doubles and triples are a lot more park dependent than you might think. USCF does not have a lot of foul ground, the fence is not something for balls to get lost in and the amount of outfield space is not really that great. Singles hitters don't really like USCF and even doubles hitters don't fare well there. A few guys who are really power hitters hit a fair number of doubles but those are more like homers that don't clear the fence. You want doubles or triples, play in a dome and/or build a wacky fence.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 03:39 PM
If you had said home runs, I might have nodded in agreement here. But unless I missed something where leadoff hitters get a penalty for anything more than a single

Coincidentally, I missed where I said that.

I just said that I don't give a damn. The extra value of a few points of OPS is nominal for your leadoff hitter when you have such great bats hitting 2-5. It's worth almost nothing over the course of a season.

Basically your analysis is "well, Podsednik doesn't get on base that much less than most other leadoff guys, and it doesn't matter if they do better than him at SLG since they're all leadoff guys."

That's not ANALYSIS. That's my conclusion. My analysis showed that PODS OBP made nearly no difference. If you want to look at it from the OPS perpective, fine - but I'll tell you that the number of runs created by the few XBH that Pods doesn't get when compared to whomever the other leadoff hitter that you choose to compare him to is, will be insignificant, if you use a guy who is a legitimate true leadoff hitter. Take the 10 leadoff hitters over the course of the past 5 WS and tell me which ones would lead to more runs produced than Pods. Now tell me how many do it for 2mm.

OPS is a particularly useless tool to measure a leadoff hitter. It takes into account too many factors that leadoff hitters normally don't excel at. There's 4 things you want leadoff hitters to do - 3 of them are within their control.
1) Get hits
2) Walk
3) Steal bases
4) Score runs (out of a hitters control except for HRs)

I really don't care if he has a single double or triple all season. I am counting on Iguchi, Thome, PK and Dye to drive him in.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 03:41 PM
I'm asking him to get the 40 2B that Craig Biggio got in 2005 despite being 39 years old.

You want 2005 Biggio or 2005 Podsednik?

Beautox
12-26-2006, 03:58 PM
That's an interesting trade you propose. You realize you wouldn't be taking his advice either because there is no way Willits would be meeting the author's average corner outfielder numbers either. I do think the Sox need another possible lead-off hitter and either home-grow one or acquire one. Not sure the Angels have given up on the man just yet though.

I don't have a problem with our LFer being a lead off hitter provided production from that spot comes from around the diamond.

Also the angels plan on using GMJ as their lead off hitter and keeping figgins lower in the order.

I just think this would be a talent for talent swap with both teams filling organizational weaknesses from it, we need a lead off hitter and they need more LHP, i don't think Phil Seibel is going to stick in their BP.

ondafarm
12-26-2006, 04:26 PM
I don't have a problem with our LFer being a lead off hitter provided production from that spot comes from around the diamond.

Also the angels plan on using GMJ as their lead off hitter and keeping figgins lower in the order.

I just think this would be a talent for talent swap with both teams filling organizational weaknesses from it, we need a lead off hitter and they need more LHP, i don't think Phil Seibel is going to stick in their BP.

Sorry, not trying to be critical. I just think that is an interesting trade. I'd almost go for it. I'm not sure the Angels would.

RKMeibalane
12-26-2006, 04:33 PM
Why is Perry an idiot??? Because he's SABR-metrically inclined??? You might not agree with everything he has to say, but he generally publishes interesting analysis at FoxSports.com and BaseballProspectus.com. Instead of calling him names (i.e., idiot, moron, etc.), perhaps you ought to EXPLAIN why he's wrong. Some examples, please.

If you had been paying any attention to this board over the past two seasons, you would know that Perry has been picking on Podsednik for years, and has always dismissed him as a liability to whatever team he's played on. Take your FOBB bull**** somewhere else.

Craig Grebeck
12-26-2006, 04:37 PM
If you had been paying any attention to this board over the past two seasons, you would know that Perry has been picking on Podsednik for years, and has always dismissed him as a liability to whatever team he's played on. Take your FOBB bull**** somewhere else.
How dare he point out that Podsednik has been exceptionally overrated and is now a complete liability.

RKMeibalane
12-26-2006, 04:41 PM
How dare he point out that Podsednik has been exceptionally overrated and is now a complete liability.

FWIW, I would like to see the Sox find a replacement, but there may not be any available right now, unless the Sox overpay for someone. All of the overspending by teams like the Cubs has made it difficult to find any reliable pitchers or position players this off-season.

Perry's act is tired and old. He's been on Pods' case for years, and doesn't seem to be letting up. It's one thing to point out that a player has weaknesses (which Pods does), or that there are better options for the LF spot, but to continuously criticize a player has "personal vendetta" written all over it. I'm not sure what Perry's problem is, but I for one and sick and tired of his constant Podsednik-bashing.

thomas35forever
12-26-2006, 04:50 PM
FWIW, I would like to see the Sox find a replacement, but there may not be any available right now, unless the Sox overpay for someone. All of the overspending by teams like the Cubs has made it difficult to find any reliable pitchers or position players this off-season.

Sad, but true. There aren't even that many players qualified for our leadoff spot left on the market.

ode to veeck
12-26-2006, 05:06 PM
astue, SABR-metrically inclined baseball analyst

the words astute, SABR-metrically inclined do not belong in the same sentence together, cannot be used to describe the same person

Risk
12-26-2006, 05:08 PM
What I've gathered from this thread:

1) Podsednik had a bad year in 06', and if he should not improve in 07', the Sox should fish or cut bait;
2) There was no viable alternative available (leadoff, base stealer) for Podsednik's price;
3) The Sox were smart to not overpay for mediocre veterans (Pierre, Matthews, Jr., and Roberts);
4) Dayn Perry and his sabremetric-worshipping, OBP-obsessing, Scott Podsednik bashing, statistic-dawdling dorkiness can kiss my Irish ass.

Number of World Championships won by Kenny Williams w/ Podsednik in LF:1
Number of times Dayn Perry has actually been correct: Hell, even a broken clock is right twice

Risk

UserNameBlank
12-26-2006, 05:48 PM
What I've gathered from this thread:

1) Podsednik had a bad year in 06', and if he should not improve in 07', the Sox should fish or cut bait;
2) There was no viable alternative available (leadoff, base stealer) for Podsednik's price;
3) The Sox were smart to not overpay for mediocre veterans (Pierre, Matthews, Jr., and Roberts);
4) Dayn Perry and his sabremetric-worshipping, OBP-obsessing, Scott Podsednik bashing, statistic-dawdling dorkiness can kiss my Irish ass.

Number of World Championships won by Kenny Williams w/ Podsednik in LF:1
Number of times Dayn Perry has actually been correct: Hell, even a broken clock is right twice

Risk

I think you've summed it all up quite nicely.

RadioheadRocks
12-26-2006, 05:56 PM
Dayn Perry is a major tool and that's all you need to know.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 06:10 PM
How dare he point out that Podsednik has been exceptionally overrated and is now a complete liability.

And you base this on one season, when two of the three prior were outstanding years... I think calling him a complete liability is a bit overboard. Again - look at the past 5 years WS teams. How many leadoff hitters have been consistently better than Pods over the past 4 years? The answer is a very small number - 1 for sure - then a lot of questionmarks. Now tell me how many of them can do it for 2mm or less?

It doesn't take a .360 obp from your leadoff hitter to have a world series calibre team, despite what some are preaching.

RKMeibalane
12-26-2006, 06:30 PM
And you base this on one season, when two of the three prior were outstanding years... I think calling him a complete liability is a bit overboard. Again - look at the past 5 years WS teams. How many leadoff hitters have been consistently better than Pods over the past 4 years? The answer is a very small number - 1 for sure - then a lot of questionmarks. Now tell me how many of them can do it for 2mm or less?

It doesn't take a .360 obp from your leadoff hitter to have a world series calibre team, despite what some are preaching.

Exercise caution, jabrch. The FOBB will be all over you soon. :cool:

ChiTownTrojan
12-26-2006, 06:46 PM
It doesn't take a .360 obp from your leadoff hitter to have a world series calibre team, despite what some are preaching.
True, but the Sox have shown the last couple years that they're at their best when their leadoff hitter is getting on base and making things happen on the basepaths. When that's happening, they're nearly unbeatable. When it doesn't happen, the offense is much more mediocre.

Craig Grebeck
12-26-2006, 06:48 PM
And you base this on one season, when two of the three prior were outstanding years... I think calling him a complete liability is a bit overboard. Again - look at the past 5 years WS teams. How many leadoff hitters have been consistently better than Pods over the past 4 years? The answer is a very small number - 1 for sure - then a lot of questionmarks. Now tell me how many of them can do it for 2mm or less?

It doesn't take a .360 obp from your leadoff hitter to have a world series calibre team, despite what some are preaching.
The problem is, Pods does next to nothing well. He doesn't hit for power (career .378 SLG), doesn't hit for average (career .275 BA), doesn't get on base enough to make up for other deficiencies (career .342 OBP), doesn't steal bases well (70% success rate the last two seasons), he isn't getting any younger (31 in March and has had groin problems, which are not ideal for a guy who makes a living off his legs), and doesn't wow with his glove.

To me, it's not so much that Podsednik is an inadequate left fielder, it's that we have below average guys in CF and at SS. If the Sox were to add just a league average LF through trade or FA, the team would improve. Iguchi would be equal to Podsednik as a leadoff hitter, and his replacement in LF would improve the team.

It isn't about Scott leading off, Gooch could do the same job, he's just a below average player and could be replaced by a more adequate LF (Ryan Church, Jacque Jones, Emil Brown).

jabrch
12-26-2006, 07:09 PM
True, but the Sox have shown the last couple years that they're at their best when their leadoff hitter is getting on base and making things happen on the basepaths. When that's happening, they're nearly unbeatable. When it doesn't happen, the offense is much more mediocre.

That's true of every position in the batting order; not just the leadoff spot. And regardless - the difference between Pods having a .330 obp and a .360 obp over the course of the season, as I showed before, is nominal.

.030*600 = 18 times on base

Pods scores 37% of his times on base

18 * .37 = under 6 runs

Hey - we could have 6 more runs over the season and only pay 8mm more for them!!!!!

jabrch
12-26-2006, 07:17 PM
The problem is, Pods does next to nothing well. He doesn't hit for power (career .378 SLG), doesn't hit for average (career .275 BA), doesn't get on base enough to make up for other deficiencies (career .342 OBP), doesn't steal bases well (70% success rate the last two seasons), he isn't getting any younger (31 in March and has had groin problems, which are not ideal for a guy who makes a living off his legs), and doesn't wow with his glove.

To me, it's not so much that Podsednik is an inadequate left fielder, it's that we have below average guys in CF and at SS. If the Sox were to add just a league average LF through trade or FA, the team would improve. Iguchi would be equal to Podsednik as a leadoff hitter, and his replacement in LF would improve the team.

It isn't about Scott leading off, Gooch could do the same job, he's just a below average player and could be replaced by a more adequate LF (Ryan Church, Jacque Jones, Emil Brown).

I don't want Jaque Jones anywhere near this team. That's one of the worst hitters in the game against LHP and I am in no way interested in creating a platoon in the OF. (the whole is never equal to the sum of its parts when it comes to platoons) As far as Church and Brown go, if those guys, who you consider more adequate, can't start in Washington and KC, I'm guessing there is a reason. I don't know so much about Church, but Emil Brown does nothing for me.

Pods has a lot of upside that you are disregarding based on 2006. For 2mm, I am more than happy to run with him unless a clear cut improvement is out there. Emil Brown, Ryan Church and Jaque Jones are not clear improvements to me.

And by the way, a 70% SB rate, when your opposition knows you are running, really isn't that bad. I know your book tells you that it bad - but it really doesn't both me as long as he is stealing about 50 bases.

Craig Grebeck
12-26-2006, 07:27 PM
the whole is never equal to the sum of its parts when it comes to platoons
I have no idea what you mean by this.
As far as Church and Brown go, if those guys, who you consider more adequate, can't start in Washington and KC, I'm guessing there is a reason.
FWIW, Brown has started 284 games the last two seasons. He is certainly a starter, and has posted pretty decent numbers that would be adequate out of LF.

Church is a victim of an absolutely brutal organization. In the last two seasons he has been great in limited time, but the Nationals would much rather start Nook Logan and Marlon Byrd.

Pods has a lot of upside that you are disregarding based on 2006.
His upside is hard to imagine when you consider both his age and nagging injuries. That being said, his upside is not very impressive.

ChiTownTrojan
12-26-2006, 08:13 PM
That's true of every position in the batting order; not just the leadoff spot. And regardless - the difference between Pods having a .330 obp and a .360 obp over the course of the season, as I showed before, is nominal.

.030*600 = 18 times on base

Pods scores 37% of his times on base

18 * .37 = under 6 runs

Hey - we could have 6 more runs over the season and only pay 8mm more for them!!!!!

Where are you getting this 37% number? By my quick calculations, it was almost 50% last year. BTW, I agree that Pods is a good option, as long as he is healthy all year and cuts down on the strikeouts.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 08:19 PM
I have no idea what you mean by this.

I know that. Your kind believes in platoons.

FWIW, Brown has started 284 games the last two seasons. He is certainly a starter, and has posted pretty decent numbers that would be adequate out of LF.

I can't think of many major league baseball teams that would start him over Podsednik - EVER.

Church is a victim of an absolutely brutal organization. In the last two seasons he has been great in limited time, but the Nationals would much rather start Nook Logan and Marlon Byrd.

I love people who know more than MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAMS. Maybe the GM, manager and coaches who watch Church every day know something that doesn't show up on your stat sheet?

His upside is hard to imagine when you consider both his age and nagging injuries. That being said, his upside is not very impressive.

Then you are not imaginative, and you don't impress fairly easily. He's not OLD - he's still only about 30. His upside is his numbers from 2005 or 2003. If you can honestly say that neither of those are impressive, then I really have little to say to you other than that you need to get your nose out of very detailed statisitcs for long enough to see what really goes on in a baseball game. Scott had a bad year - but there is absolutely no reason to conclude that he can't perform like he did in 2005 or even 2003.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 08:21 PM
Where are you getting this 37% number? By my quick calculations, it was almost 50% last year. BTW, I agree that Pods is a good option, as long as he is healthy all year and cuts down on the strikeouts.


I goofed. 87/(137+54) = 45%. I think I grabbed the wrong number. So it is about 8 runs, not six. Thanks for catching my error.

Craig Grebeck
12-26-2006, 10:11 PM
I know that. Your kind believes in platoons.
What's wrong with platoons? If they are done with the right personnel they can be effective.
I can't think of many major league baseball teams that would start him over Podsednik - EVER.
Please. Look at their statistics. Scott does absolutely nothing well (I already laid that out a few posts ago). Brown is not superb, but he is considerably better than Podsednik in every way.

I love people who know more than MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAMS. Maybe the GM, manager and coaches who watch Church every day know something that doesn't show up on your stat sheet?
Well, then he must have murdered both Frank Robinson's and Jim Bowden's dogs then.

In sporadic playing time, Church put up a line of .276/.366/.526. He did get a fair amount of starts, but he was inexplicably sent down in the middle of the season.
Then you are not imaginative, and you don't impress fairly easily. He's not OLD - he's still only about 30. His upside is his numbers from 2005 or 2003. If you can honestly say that neither of those are impressive, then I really have little to say to you other than that you need to get your nose out of very detailed statisitcs for long enough to see what really goes on in a baseball game. Scott had a bad year - but there is absolutely no reason to conclude that he can't perform like he did in 2005 or even 2003.
In his last 872 PA, Podsednik has been bad. He hasn't been the same since the summer of 2005. He wasn't inconsistent in 2006, he was just all around bad. Agree to Disagree.

jabrch
12-27-2006, 12:29 AM
What's wrong with platoons? If they are done with the right personnel they can be effective.

Platoons SUCK. You are better off with one good baseball player than two guys who can only succeed in certain situations. Why's that? Because when the chips are down, they won't be in optimal conditions. Teams will put LHP against Jones, and then what? He's out. And if his platoon partner started, and he was put in in the 7th, and then he sees a LHP, then what?

Platoons are only for teams without enough resources or talent to get a legitimate MLB player.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-27-2006, 12:45 AM
Platoons SUCK. You are better off with one good baseball player than two guys who can only succeed in certain situations. Why's that? Because when the chips are down, they won't be in optimal conditions. Teams will put LHP against Jones, and then what? He's out. And if his platoon partner started, and he was put in in the 7th, and then he sees a LHP, then what?

Platoons are only for teams without enough resources or talent to get a legitimate MLB player.

If you can get a good 4th OFer to put in 3 or 4 games a week filling in you have a ready player who can fill in if needed who has seen live pitching all year. Casey Stengel who is widely acknowledged s the best manager ever used platoons extensively throughout his MLB career.

I would much rather spend money and have an extra bat or two on the bench for a platoon player than these ridiculous LOOGYs LaRussa ushered in a few decades ago with his match-up obsessions.

Obviously you would rather have All Star players at each position but it is not realistic for most teams due to the economics of the game.

Ozzie likes using his bench players but he is also obsessed with the L / R matchups late in the game and has gotten burned in the past running out of relief pitchers after a game goes to extras and he used 3 or 4 relievers for one or two hitters each.

I am not a fan of the White Sox going with 12 pitchers which is what Cooper said was the plan (though nobody will know for sure until after Spring Training - Cooper didn't know about the Garcia trade until after the fact).

QOTSA
12-27-2006, 01:02 AM
Pods did what he's all he could with the bat but he couldn't steal bases and couldn't track down a fly ball to save his life, Sweeney could out produce him at the plate and in the field.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-27-2006, 02:12 AM
If you had been paying any attention to this board over the past two seasons, you would know that Perry has been picking on Podsednik for years, and has always dismissed him as a liability to whatever team he's played on. Take your FOBB bull**** somewhere else.

I'll put aside the ad hominem attack. But do you actually think having Podsednik in LF is an ASSET for the Sox?

fquaye149
12-27-2006, 02:31 AM
I'll put aside the ad hominem attack. But do you actually think having Podsednik in LF is an ASSET for the Sox?

Whether Pods sucks (he did last year) is irrelevant to whether Perry should be taken seriously....

He is the Mariotti of Podsednik

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-27-2006, 03:45 AM
Whether Pods sucks (he did last year) is irrelevant to whether Perry should be taken seriously....

He is the Mariotti of Podsednik

I cannot disagree more. Mariotti knows nothing about baseball. Perry is a reasoned, dispassionate analyst withou an ax to grind.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-27-2006, 03:52 AM
I gave you a link to why he is an idiot, did you bother to follow it?

Um, because it's anecdotal, merely.

barney27
12-27-2006, 07:18 AM
I couldn't agree more! Pods and the leadoff position are the only area of concern regarding the hitting and defense we have going into 2007.
you are not at all worried about Uribe? That is the most important question that needs to be answered. Pods struggled last year but during our world series year he was a huge reason why we won. He may come back better this year since last year he was banged up. I think we have more security with Sweeny being closer to major league ready, not to say I wouldn't like a little more security.

Craig Grebeck
12-27-2006, 07:38 AM
Platoons SUCK. You are better off with one good baseball player than two guys who can only succeed in certain situations. Why's that? Because when the chips are down, they won't be in optimal conditions. Teams will put LHP against Jones, and then what? He's out. And if his platoon partner started, and he was put in in the 7th, and then he sees a LHP, then what?

Platoons are only for teams without enough resources or talent to get a legitimate MLB player.
Which is everything Scott Podsednik isn't.

Risk
12-27-2006, 08:39 AM
Perry is a reasoned, dispassionate analyst withou an ax to grind.

Hello Dayn or friend of Dayn.

Risk

SouthSide_HitMen
12-27-2006, 12:17 PM
I cannot disagree more. Mariotti knows nothing about baseball. Perry is a reasoned, dispassionate analyst withou an ax to grind.

Actually, during on the Baseball Prospectus website, Dayn talked about how he and another BP geek were heckling Podsednik from their upper deck seats after he was caught stealing during the 2005 season.

I was never a fan of Podsednik but his low cost does permit the club to upgrade at other positions.

Podsednik is very bad in the field. He has a terrible arm and does not get good jumps on the ball which lead to balls dropping which a man with his speed should get to.

Podsednik gets caught stealing at too high of a rate. People rave about how he throws off the other pitcher. He does at times which he should get credit for. However, since it cannot be quantified, people overestimate how many times this does in fact occur. What we can quantify is caught stealing and Podsednik gets caught too many times (23 in 82 attempts in 2005 and 19 in 59 attempts in 2006). He is a year older and I would expect a continued decline in stolen bases.

He didn't get on base enough in 2006 to be a successful leadoff man. It is more important for Podsednik (or anyone else leading off) to reach base, not steal bases. The White Sox 2-5 hitters are good enough to knock in a leadoff man from 1st. We gave up 19 chances to score lat year with his pickoffs / caught stealing which most likely were more than the times Scott scored from second base after a steal whereas he wouldn't have scored during the same inning from first base.

The problem is I do not think the White Sox have an adequate replacement. I do agree with others that the free agents were overpriced and we were better off sticking with Podsednik based on the outrageous signings. Hopefully he will be able to reach more in 2007.

fquaye149
12-27-2006, 12:25 PM
I cannot disagree more. Mariotti knows nothing about baseball. Perry is a reasoned, dispassionate analyst withou an ax to grind.

I said he's the Mariotti of Podsednik, not baseball. He does seem to have an axe to grind when it comes to Pods and will not say a good word about him.

Now, granted, this last season did not leave the door open for many good words about him, but that seems to me to be pretty obvious to everyone...and seeing this thread (granted reading the column it was less obnoxious than I thought) gave me the impression of a guy who has admitted to not liking a player kicking the guy when he's down.

I don't hate Perry's columns---I think he's got a lot of good things to say about minor leaguers---but I think he goes way overboard in his one man crusade against Podsednik.

FWIW firejoemorgan disagrees with me strongly on this issue

spiffie
12-27-2006, 12:31 PM
Podsednik gets caught stealing at too high of a rate. People rave about how he throws off the other pitcher. He does at times which he should get credit for. However, since it cannot be quantified, people overestimate how many times this does in fact occur.
I deleted the rest of this since I don't want to get into another fight with the FOS crowd. I will say though that while I have never looked specifically at Podsednik, I have seen analysis that basically showed no significant difference in production for hitters when they have a super speed threat on first base versus when they have any other average player on first. It would be worth looking at over the last 2 years if players following Podsednik had a noticeable raise in production with him on base versus if anyone else was on base at that point.

Two things I would love to see more consideration and statistical analysis on are 1) with a SB threat on base is there a noticeable difference in ground ball singles (due to defensive realignment to head off stolen bases)? 2) Is there any impact on pitch counts if a SB threat induces a large number of pickoff attempts? If a pitcher is making 15-25 throws a game that not only have to be relatively fast but also accurate (if not needing the accuracy of a regular pitch to home) does that speed up a pitcher's decline as his pitch count increases?

Baby Fisk
12-27-2006, 12:44 PM
Perry is a reasoned, dispassionate analyst withou an ax to grind.

Perry has some kind of twisted, unrequited man-crush on Pods. Pods has been the target of Perry's downright creepy Glenn Close obsessions for going on three seasons now.

fquaye149
12-27-2006, 12:50 PM
Perry has some kind of twisted, unrequited man-crush on Pods. Pods has been the target of Perry's downright creepy Glenn Close obsessions for going on three seasons now.

I wonder if he decided some of Pods's SB's didn't count b/c the game was either out of hand or too close or because it was a Sunday

SouthSide_HitMen
12-27-2006, 12:51 PM
I deleted the rest of this since I don't want to get into another fight with the FOS crowd. I will say though that while I have never looked specifically at Podsednik, I have seen analysis that basically showed no significant difference in production for hitters when they have a super speed threat on first base versus when they have any other average player on first. It would be worth looking at over the last 2 years if players following Podsednik had a noticeable raise in production with him on base versus if anyone else was on base at that point.

Two things I would love to see more consideration and statistical analysis on are 1) with a SB threat on base is there a noticeable difference in ground ball singles (due to defensive realignment to head off stolen bases)? 2) Is there any impact on pitch counts if a SB threat induces a large number of pickoff attempts? If a pitcher is making 15-25 throws a game that not only have to be relatively fast but also accurate (if not needing the accuracy of a regular pitch to home) does that speed up a pitcher's decline as his pitch count increases?

I don't know what FOS stands for (foes of stats? friends of stats?).

I get the Bill James Handbook each year. I enjoy reading baseball stats. I use them when I wager on baseball. Stats cannot quantify everything but they are useful when used in the proper context.

An offsetting statistic (to your two questions) would be how much does Iguchi's (or the number 2 hitter) BA / OBP / SLG decline when Podesednik is on first or second (due to taking pitches and or moving him over by slapping the ball to the left side)?

Factors beyond the extra throws to first (tiring the pitcher) is the fact pitchers lose concentration (by worrying about the baserunners) and throw more fastballs (which should help the hitter at the plate).

Speed is great if you can use it PRODUCTIVELY. I do think people overestimate speed such as the poster who stated Podsednik in LF was better than having Manny Ramirez in LF. Ramirez will get on base at a much higher clip and has a slugging % 250 points higher than Podsednik. Whatever a team loses by a lack of speed / stolen bases is more than made up for by the numerous extra times Ramirez reaches base, usually for extra bases, and by the number of extra runs he will drive in vs. Podsednik who does not hit many extra base hits. This does not take into account the salary aspect of the debate (which is important since the White Sox would not be able to afford Manny and the rest of their current roster) but evaluating strictly from a baseball sense, nobody can state with a straight face they would rather have Podsednik over Ramirez.

maurice
12-27-2006, 12:52 PM
Um, because it's anecdotal, merely.

What's anecdotal? You're claiming that daver failed to provide a statistically significant sample of idiotic articles?

Bad analysis isn't ERA, OBP, etc. Even one example proves the point. If you want more examples, do a search of this site.

It's pretty clear that he does in fact have an axe to grind.

Baby Fisk
12-27-2006, 12:52 PM
I wonder if he decided some of Pods's SB's didn't count b/c the game was either out of hand or too close or because it was a Sunday

More likely because Pods won't return his calls.

spiffie
12-27-2006, 01:04 PM
I don't know what FOS stands for (foes of stats? friends of stats?).
FOS = Friends of Scotty. I've kind of gotten on their bad side lately :wink:

An offsetting statistic (to your two questions) would be how much does Iguchi's (or the number 2 hitter) BA / OBP / SLG decline when Podesednik is on first or second (due to taking pitches and or moving him over by slapping the ball to the left side)?
I would say from everything I've read that the benefit and the downside about balance each other out. From everything I've seen in general most guys hit better with men on base, but there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the speed of those guys on base. Again though, I'd love to see something more in depth on that issue.

Factors beyond the extra throws to first (tiring the pitcher) is the fact pitchers lose concentration (by worrying about the baserunners) and throw more fastballs (which should help the hitter at the plate).
The concentration would, I would assume, be something seen in the increased production of those hitters behind a speed threat. As for the fastball thing, assuming that's true (which it seems to be somewhat, at the very least it seems pitchers will tend to avoid sharply breaking pitches like Jenks and the hammer curve), again, theoretically that should manifest itself in increased production. If the hitter knows the #1 is coming, they should be better able to hit it. But is the increase in fastballs an effect of having a fast guy on base or simply having a guy on base? Even Jim Thome can usually go from first to second on a passed ball.

Speed is great if you can use it PRODUCTIVELY. I do think people overestimate speed such as the poster who stated Podsednik in LF was better than having Manny Ramirez in LF. Ramirez will get on base at a much higher clip and has a slugging % 250 points higher than Podsednik. Whatever a team loses by a lack of speed / stolen bases is more than made up for by the numerous extra times Ramirez reaches base, usually for extra bases, and by the number of extra runs he will drive in vs. Podsednik who does not hit many extra base hits. This does not take into account the salary aspect of the debate (which is important since the White Sox would not be able to afford Manny and the rest of their current roster) but evaluating strictly from a baseball sense, nobody can state with a straight face they would rather have Podsednik over Ramirez.
That pretty well sums it up.

Frater Perdurabo
12-27-2006, 01:11 PM
:tomatoaward

Here's a dirty rotten tomato for a dirty rotten thread centered on a dirty rotten article written by a dirty rotten Pods hater.

ondafarm
12-27-2006, 01:13 PM
. . . People rave about how he throws off the other pitcher. He does at times which he should get credit for. However, since it cannot be quantified, people overestimate how many times this does in fact occur. What we can quantify is caught stealing and Podsednik gets caught too many times (23 in 82 attempts in 2005 and 19 in 59 attempts in 2006). He is a year older and I would expect a continued decline in stolen bases.


The problem is I do not think the White Sox have an adequate replacement. I do agree with others that the free agents were overpriced and we were better off sticking with Podsednik based on the outrageous signings. Hopefully he will be able to reach more in 2007.


As one of the people you mention who raves, I think I can answer this. It is actually the threat of stealing, as opposed to the stealing that is of most importance here. Any former catcher will tell you that when a stolen base threat is on base, your strategy completely changes. For myself, I always had a deal with the pitcher that we'd allow the pitching coach to call the pitches if a serious stealer was on. I called all other pitches. I never liked a stealer on base, but it was always the best interest of the team that had to outweigh my own dislike. Myself, I never stole enough bases to be considered a threat (24 max in a season, still a league record for catchers.) My arm was only considered slightly above average although everyone in the league knew that the first guy to run on me I cut down by accidently beaning him with the throw down (the game was nationally televised.)

Pods real job is to be a disrupter on base. Interfere with the pitcher's rhythm and get in the catcher's head. I'd say he is the best alternative the Sox have right now, although I think the Sox should be looking to acquire another guy and traing/ draft a few.

jabrch
12-27-2006, 04:56 PM
Which is everything Scott Podsednik isn't.

Only if you completely ignore his performances in 2 of the last 4 years.

jabrch
12-27-2006, 04:59 PM
An offsetting statistic (to your two questions) would be how much does Iguchi's (or the number 2 hitter) BA / OBP / SLG decline when Podesednik is on first or second (due to taking pitches and or moving him over by slapping the ball to the left side)?


Not really - since that is the job he goes up to the plate to do. The "problem" only exists in the minds of those who think sacrificing and attempting to steal bases is a negative thing.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-27-2006, 10:08 PM
Not really - since that is the job he goes up to the plate to do. The "problem" only exists in the minds of those who think sacrificing and attempting to steal bases is a negative thing.

Sacrificing does result in an out so yes it is a negative outcome. If you are playing for one run or have a poor hitter (i.e. a pitcher) it makes sense. If you are in the 1st or 3rd inning it rarely makes sense as you are forgoing a chance at a big / bigger inning.

Attempting to steal bases is a positive event if you are successful at a 75% clip or better. Scotty was caught about a third of the time last season which is too high, IMO. Perhaps he will be healthier this season and that percentage will improve but he will also be a year older (31 years old) which may offset some of his prior speed.

I hope he does bounce back to hit .275 / .340 (OBP) and can steal 30 - 40 bases at a 75% clip. That is the best I would hope for next year - anything better is gravy.

My main concern about the lineup is whether Ozzie will play Anderson as a regular. If he has no intensions of playing him 130 + games next year they should get a replacement (or a capable replacement) prior to Spring Training. Based on what has been reported throughout 2006, Kenny Williams wants Brian to start on a regular basis but Ozzie has his reasons against it. Ozzie needs to allow Anderson the chance to succeed and give his pitching staff a better chance to win games and not make them record 4 or 5 outs in an inning.

jabrch
12-27-2006, 11:33 PM
Sacrificing does result in an out so yes it is a negative outcome. If you are playing for one run or have a poor hitter (i.e. a pitcher) it makes sense. If you are in the 1st or 3rd inning it rarely makes sense as you are forgoing a chance at a big / bigger inning.

That's untrue. I'm content scoring one run, if my odds of doing it are more likely. If my pitching staff will hold the opposition to 3-4 runs, it doesn't take too many 1 run innings to win a game.

Attempting to steal bases is a positive event if you are successful at a 75% clip or better.

That's not necesarily true. The calculations that were used to make that statement do not include so many of the beneifts that result from having pitchers and defenses having to play aginst the SB. You may believe that this magic number of 75% is a breakeven point, but it isn't. The math behind that is completely flawed as it leaves out most of the true benefit of having guys who can steal bases.

Ask Ondafarm what a catcher and a pitcher do differently if a base-stealer is on 1st with 0 out, vs a slow guy. How about your IFs? your OFs? Tell me where that is calculated into the 75% rule that has become gossip amongst the FOBB? Truth - it has no roots in any baseball wisdom, only in statsheet analysis.


Scotty was caught about a third of the time last season which is too high, IMO. Perhaps he will be healthier this season and that percentage will improve but he will also be a year older (31 years old) which may offset some of his prior speed.

I wish he was caught much less - but he wasn't. What you are doing is using the 75% number - and I think that's a horse**** fabricated litmus test. I see no reason to believe that with all the benefits not calculated in that number that the difference between 66% and 75%, when you are talking about a guy who has about 70 attempts is significant. (7 bases over the course of the season? I'm convinced that's insignificant. Pods scores about 45% of his times on base - so you are talking about 3-4 runs over the course of a season)

I hope he does bounce back to hit .275 / .340 (OBP) and can steal 30 - 40 bases at a 75% clip. That is the best I would hope for next year - anything better is gravy.

You'd rather 30-40 bases at a 75% clip than 50-60 bases at a 66% clip? I'll take the second option any day. It will score you more runs if you factor in the threat of the SB and the impacts that has.

santo=dorf
12-27-2006, 11:56 PM
The 75% stolen base rule with the tough division line is a bunch of BS from "Clueless" Joe Sheehan and the ridiculous "expected runs matrix." (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/expected_runs_matrix2005.premium.php) According to that nonsense (which changes yearly, so the SB% should change as well,) the Red Sox should have scored 2.3109 runs against El Duque in Game 3 of the ALDS. Which just happens to be just more proof that the 2005 White Sox were a fluke, and Joe Sheehan was correct on Buehrle and Garica being middle of the rotation pitchers for a 4th place team.

It's so black and white for the nimrods at BP.

75% or greater: Helping the team.
74% or less: killing the team.

Why don't they just make an OPS change by taking bases away from Pods' OBP for when he gets caught and adding bases to his SLG% when he isn't caught?

SABRSox
12-28-2006, 12:01 AM
I agree, I'd rather have the guy that's 66% on 70 attempts than the guy that's 75% on 40 attempts. I'd just want to make sure that baserunner is better in the later innings at stealing bases, when they influence the game more. If he's got to get thrown out earlier in the game, I can live with that if it gets him a better jump in the 8th, and sparks a run to tie or pull ahead.

jabrch
12-28-2006, 12:12 AM
I agree, I'd rather have the guy that's 66% on 70 attempts than the guy that's 75% on 40 attempts. I'd just want to make sure that baserunner is better in the later innings at stealing bases, when they influence the game more. If he's got to get thrown out earlier in the game, I can live with that if it gets him a better jump in the 8th, and sparks a run to tie or pull ahead.

I agree with that. I'd always like guys who perform in "late and close" situations when possible.

That's actually why I like guys with higher batting averages and am willing to sacrifice a bit of OBP to get it. I know it means less baserunners, but the guy who gets the hits, can get them in close and late, against top tier pitching. The guy who has a lower avg, but a higher obp will have to wait for someone to throw him four balls to get on base via the walk. If he's facing a tough closer, or a top tier starter, the odds of that go down even more than the odds of getting a hit.

Hawk always says, "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it." I think he agrees with you too.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-28-2006, 12:46 AM
You'd rather 30-40 bases at a 75% clip than 50-60 bases at a 66% clip? I'll take the second option any day. It will score you more runs if you factor in the threat of the SB and the impacts that has.

I had a response to each point but the server crapped out. :angry:

Podsednik stole 40 bases last year, not 50-60. I do not think his speed numbers will improve from last year. What I hope is he is caught less.

He had one good month (May (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6489/splits;_ylt=AllK.wQdoHr4VnSfjkYE2aaFCLcF)) all season, one OK month and 4 ****ty months (in the beginning and end). I don't know why people expect a player two years older than he was in 2005 (31 in 2007) would replicate his stats from his age 29 season. Podsednik is a regressing player at this point of his career and speed numbers decline more rapidly than power numbers.

As far as the rest of your post (attacking the 75% number, calling me a FOBB :rolleyes: and evidence such as "what ondafarm said") why don't you tell us what an acceptable rate is before you tell Scott to stop trying. 60%? 50%? 40%? 10%?

Earl Weaver said **** stolen bases. Casey Stengel said **** stolen bases. No offense to ondafarm but I think they had a pretty good grasp of the game of baseball. The Red Sox and Cardinals were among the league laggards in SBs yet they won the World Series. The White Sox won in 2005 because their starters and bullpen were excellent, not because of the lazy media pegging their play "smallball". They were as dependent on power as they were in 2001-2004 and 2006. The 2006 team did not miss the playoffs because Podsednik was horse**** at the top of the lineup. The 2006 team missed the playoffs because the staff regressed from 2005.

The White Sox chances in 2007 will once again live or die with their pitching staff. I don't care if Podsednik steals bases or not or bats 1st or 9th. If he cannot reach base he should be replaced at the top of the order by Iguchi or Mackowiak or someone else who can reach base.

If you don't have talent you rely on gimmicks like SBs and you will die just like the degenerate gambler trying to double his bets to break even.

The top (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/stats/byteam?cat=Overall&cut_type=0&conference=MLB&year=season_2006&sort=711) teams in SBs were among the worst offensive squads in baseball (Angels, Cubs, Tampa, Cincinnati, San Diego, Washington, Seattle). The Yankees, Mets and Dodgers were the exceptions though they had league leading OBP and or Slugging numbers.

The top scoring teams (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/stats/byteam?cat=Overall&cut_type=0&conference=MLB&year=season_2006&sort=724) were the ones with home runs and high batting averages / slugging / OBP. Teams that are able to reach base and knock runners in with doubles and home runs will score at a higher clip. Gimmicks do not work over the course of the season nor will they overcome a lack of talent.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-28-2006, 01:48 AM
Podsednik's SBs (and caught stealing when future runners scored / may have scored).

September - Scott cost the team at least two runs by running.

(0) 9/17: SB - Irrelevant - stranded.
(0) 9/9: SB - Irrelevant - the next two hitters reached on a single and double to the OF.
(0) 9/8: 2 SB in the same inning. Irrelevant - stranded.

(-1) 9/19 CS - The next two hitters both homered
(-1) 9/17: CS - The next two runners reached on singles to the OF and Thome walked. This cost the White Sox at least one run.

9/27 CS & 9/12 CS - Most likely irrelevant.

August - Scott's stolen bases and caught stealing were irrelevant.

(0) 8/29 SB: Irrelevant - Dye would have homered him in.
(0) 8/27 2 SBs: Irrelevant - did not score in either inning.
(0) 8/18 SB: Irrelevant - Stranded.
(0) 8/4 SB: Irrelevant - Would have scored regardless on Thome's double though Iguchi may have hit into a double play. ?
(0) 8/5 SB: Irrelevant - Caught on a fielders choice subsequent to the SB. He would have scored instead of Iguchi after Thome's single.

8/31 & 8/10 CS - Most likely irrelevant.

July - See August

7/30 SB: Irrelevant - Scott would have scored after the next two hitters singled to the OF.
7/9 SB: Irrelevant - Stranded.
7/8 SB: Irrelevant - Would have scored on Thome's home run.
7/5 SB: Irrelevant - The next four hitters singled with one sac fly mixed in.
7/4 SB: Irrelevant - Stranded.

7/29 & 7/5 CS - Most likely irrelevant.

June - Net Zero though this was the first SB in 4 months that meant anything.

6/27 - Irrelevant - Three consecutive singles to the OF followed.
(+1) 6/24 - First SB to mean anything. Scored on a sac fly.
6/18 - Irrelevant - Stranded.
6/3 - Irrelevant - Stole third - the next two hitters singled.
6/1 - 1st Inning Irrelevant - next three hitters walked, doubled and homered.
6/1 - 9th inning - Irrelevant - Stranded.

6/30, 6/28 CS - Most likely irrelevant.
6/23 CS - Led off the inning with CS but most likely irrelevant.
(-1) 6/27 CS: Caught stealing at third, Dye the next hitter singled to center.

April - Net Zero Runs

4/16 Irrelevant - Thome HRs
4/18 SB - Irrelevant in 5th. 7th inning relevant - Scott later scores fourth run on sac fly in 4-1 win.
4/25 SB - Irrelevant - subsequent hitters doubled and homered.

4/19 CS - Cost a run as the next hitters singled and then drew two walks.
4/22 & 4/29 - CS to end inning.

May - Two postive runs

May 1 (1st - irrelevant - Konerko Homered, 6th - irrelevant - They walked Thome after the steal. two SBs in the 9th to score the 8th run of the game after a Thome single in an 8-5 game).

May 9 - Irrelevant as the next two hitters reached on hits to the OF.
5/14 & 5/15 - Irrelevant - Stranded.
5/16 - First inning - third relevant SB of the year in a 10-7 Loss. Stole two more bases in the 3rd and made the final out at home. :rolleyes:
5/17 - Irrelevant - Thome walked as a result and Konerko singled afterwards.
5/19 - Irrelevant - Stranded.
5/23 - Irrelevant - Would have scored on two subsequent home runs in the inning; Caught in fielders choice later in the inning after second stolen base.

May 1, 21st & 28th CS - Most likely irrelevant

So in 2006, Scott Podsedniks SB resulted in a run that helped the team in one victory on 6/24. Scott also cost the team at least one run in the 9/17 5-4 loss.

All of that running resulted in what the little boy shot at - nothing (net zero runs scored assuming all of those caught stealings did not harm the club which is not likely as a couple of runs would have likely scored by hitters who were not given the chance after Podsednik ran them out of an inning).

It would have been much more productive to have a leadoff hitter reach base and wait for hitters to knock him in. It would have been much more productive to have a corner OF who could actually drive in runs himself on doubles and homers. But where is the excitement in all of that relevant production? Oh, the fear SBs put into the heart of the opponent. Why, the fear of Manny or Soriano or Matsui or Dunn or Lee is nothing compared to the fear of Podsednik. Smallball. :rolleyes:

Craig Grebeck
12-28-2006, 08:07 AM
Getting on base>>>>Stealing bases

We don't have a powerless lineup. With the guys we have now, stealing bases unless it's "late and close" is completely unnecessary and can hurt the team if we have a horrid base stealer (Podsednik).

SBSoxFan
12-28-2006, 08:45 AM
Why don't they just make an OPS change by taking bases away from Pods' OBP for when he gets caught and adding bases to his SLG% when he isn't caught?

Amen! I've thought this myself. It seems a very reasonable and simple way to factor in SB/CS to an existing statistic. Of course, then you don't get to make up any NEW statistics, and that's no fun.

spiffie
12-28-2006, 10:07 AM
Why don't they just make an OPS change by taking bases away from Pods' OBP for when he gets caught and adding bases to his SLG% when he isn't caught?
Somewhere on this site I ran numbers like that for 2006 leadoff men. Pods actually came out looking even worse in comparison to the rest of them doing that. For quick reference though:
2006: unadjusted line: 261/330/353 40SB, 19CS Adjusted line: 261/298/429 Net OPS change: +44 (683 to 727)
2005: unadjusted line: 290/351/349 59 SB, 23 CS Adjusted line: 290/309/465
Net OPS change: +74 (700 to 774)

NorthSideSox72
12-28-2006, 10:21 AM
Amen! I've thought this myself. It seems a very reasonable and simple way to factor in SB/CS to an existing statistic. Of course, then you don't get to make up any NEW statistics, and that's no fun.
If you want a total picture of bases earned and lost offensively, there used to be a number people bantered around called "Total Average". It took all the positive bases - TB + SB + extra base on hits + etc., etc., and subtracted CS's, DP's, etc. I forget the exact formula. But when I first saw it mentioned in a magazine in the early 90's, the best in baseball was Big Frank, and the number was just over 1.000. It basically gave you a picture of the total number of bases a person contributed, net, per at bat.

Google could probably find you the formula.

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 10:45 AM
I agree, I'd rather have the guy that's 66% on 70 attempts than the guy that's 75% on 40 attempts. I'd just want to make sure that baserunner is better in the later innings at stealing bases, when they influence the game more. If he's got to get thrown out earlier in the game, I can live with that if it gets him a better jump in the 8th, and sparks a run to tie or pull ahead.I don't think that's necessarily true. Getting on base and stealing second and third early in the game can put a lot of stress on the starter. If he implodes you get into the bullpen earlier and have a chance for a rout. People will point to the lopsided score as evidence the SB didn't mean anything, but that's not automatically true. A classic example is Game 1 of the 2005 ALDS.

You can never prove one way or the other what would have happened if the SB had not occurred, but every baseball event is influenced by the ones before it.

soxinem1
12-28-2006, 09:06 PM
Can't win for losing....

We had CLee in LF for six years and we were accused of having a one-dimensional team that resembled a slow-pitch softball squad with no real lead-off man.

We get Pods, re-sign him, and are accused of being cheap and relying on an over-rated player who has no pop.

Others suggest we should trade half the organization to get Carl Crawford, who has some power and speed, but is not a lead off-man and a pretty low OBP because he is a swinger. Plus, we'd have a three man rotation, no prospects, and a guy out of position in the #1 slot.

What does any of this mean? It means the season hasn't started yet, you will not have a Willie Mays-type player at every position, and people need to get a grip and come to the realization that we will have to make due with what we have.

I liked it better when the press told everyone in 2005 that the Sox would choke and we had the 'us against the world' attitude. Regardless of who plays LF in 2007, if we have that again, I'll be pleased.

russ99
12-29-2006, 02:06 PM
All these SABR and fantasy baseball guys hate Pods. For the Sox he does a lot more than his OBP tells. Plus these SABR and Prospectus guys are totally in love with the fantasy concept of a power hitting corner outfielder. He even said it in his article, which is completly untrue in real baseball.

jabrch
12-29-2006, 03:10 PM
SS - all I have to say is thank goodness our management subscribes to a different philosophy than you do.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-29-2006, 11:43 PM
SS - all I have to say is thank goodness our management subscribes to a different philosophy than you do.

You are wrong on this as well. The White Sox under Kenny Williams built their team based on power and pitching.

The White Sox have finished as follows (in the American League):

Runs:
2001 798 (6th)
2002 856 (3rd)
2003 791 (8th)
2004 865 (3rd)
2005 741 (9th)
2006 868 (3rd)

Home Runs:
2001 214 (2nd)
2002 217 (3rd)
2003 220 (4th)
2004 242 (Tied 1st)
2005 200 (4th)
2006 236 (1st)

Stolen Bases:
2001 123 (7th)
2002 75 (9th)
2003 77 (11th)
2004 78 (9th)
2005 137 (3rd)
2006 93 (7th)

Kenny Williams will continue to value power guys like Konerko, Dye and Thome (as well as Iguchi, AJ and Uribe who also provide good power for their position) and can only hope Podsednik and Ozzie (Cora is gone Thank God) will not continue to run the team out of innings (assuming Podsednik can get on base). Get on base and let the sluggers knock you in.

The one thing we can agree on is to agree to disagree at this point since it is apparent that neither of us are budging.

tomgordon1
01-04-2007, 04:11 PM
It may be time to replace Pods. Who knows...but Perry has been known to twist facts to try to make Podsednik look worse than he is


But Perry is right in this case

tomgordon1
01-04-2007, 04:15 PM
Anyway, it may be either Pods or Anderson. KW should seriously try and pursue one of the following three players:

Darin Erstad
Shannon Stewart
Trot Nixon

Why?

Not only can one of them do a lot for the team but they can play the outfield too. I'd rather see one of them take up the center-field spot but Pods has a weaker arm than Anderson. Plus, Anderson may be good someday and it can hurt to throw him somewhere else. We all heard about Stewart's injuries but it's not like he's gonna pull of a Ken Griffey Jr. and be injured everyday. These guys can bring a veteran presence to what can become an all-young roster someday (that's referring to all of the pitchers acquired this offseason)

lakeviewsoxfan
01-04-2007, 04:40 PM
Anyway, it may be either Pods or Anderson. KW should seriously try and pursue one of the following three players:

Darin Erstad
Shannon Stewart
Trot Nixon

Why?

Not only can one of them do a lot for the team but they can play the outfield too. I'd rather see one of them take up the center-field spot but Pods has a weaker arm than Anderson. Plus, Anderson may be good someday and it can hurt to throw him somewhere else. We all heard about Stewart's injuries but it's not like he's gonna pull of a Ken Griffey Jr. and be injured everyday. These guys can bring a veteran presence to what can become an all-young roster someday (that's referring to all of the pitchers acquired this offseason)

All 3 are DHS at time in their carrers. You think Mack was a disaster in CF last year multiply that by 10 and you have Trot Nixon.

ChiSoxFan7
01-04-2007, 06:02 PM
Anyway, it may be either Pods or Anderson. KW should seriously try and pursue one of the following three players:

Darin Erstad
Shannon Stewart
Trot Nixon

Why?

Not only can one of them do a lot for the team but they can play the outfield too. I'd rather see one of them take up the center-field spot but Pods has a weaker arm than Anderson. Plus, Anderson may be good someday and it can hurt to throw him somewhere else. We all heard about Stewart's injuries but it's not like he's gonna pull of a Ken Griffey Jr. and be injured everyday. These guys can bring a veteran presence to what can become an all-young roster someday (that's referring to all of the pitchers acquired this offseason)

this just dosen't make sense. Pods had a bad year. I personally think we ran out his legs in 05. but where do you see anderson or pods coming up. Anderson is the CF, not a LF (not pods)of the whitesox. He got alot better at the end of the season and had great, if not outstanding, defesne all year. He doesnt make flashy plays cuz he doesnt have to. He gets amazing reads, and gets there before a dive is needed. so i just dont' get why you say it's Anderson or Pods?:unsure:

Domeshot17
01-04-2007, 08:31 PM
Actually, Anderson did improve as the year went on, but he had a terrible september/october (not unlike a lot of the sox hitters, Crede especially).

I am reserving judgement on Anderson until spring training. IMHO, he has until the all star break to show he belongs here. If he is hitting below .240 still, then down to triple A he goes and up comes Ryan Sweeney.