PDA

View Full Version : Dayn Perry: Zito Signing Ill-Advised


SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-30-2006, 06:28 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6317368

Money quote:

"Since pitching coach Rick Peterson left Oakland for the Mets, Zito has struggled to live up to his former standards. From 2004-06 (his post-Peterson era), Zito logged a cumulative ERA of 4.05, and that's despite pitching roughly half his games in McAfee Coliseum, a park that's particularly tough on right-handed hitters. AT&T Park in San Francisco plays similarly, but the point is that Zito's time in Oakland has served to make his numbers look better than they really are."

RKMeibalane
12-30-2006, 08:53 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6317368

Money quote:

"Since pitching coach Rick Peterson left Oakland for the Mets, Zito has struggled to live up to his former standards. From 2004-06 (his post-Peterson era), Zito logged a cumulative ERA of 4.05, and that's despite pitching roughly half his games in McAfee Coliseum, a park that's particularly tough on right-handed hitters. AT&T Park in San Francisco plays similarly, but the point is that Zito's time in Oakland has served to make his numbers look better than they really are."

But the real question is, does Perry somehow think Podsednik is to blame for the Zito signing?

Bucky F. Dent
12-30-2006, 09:27 AM
Evidence of a robust "full employment" economy. Someone actually pays this tool to come up with opinions like this!

ondafarm
12-30-2006, 10:09 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6317368

Money quote:

"Since pitching coach Rick Peterson left Oakland for the Mets, Zito has struggled to live up to his former standards. From 2004-06 (his post-Peterson era), Zito logged a cumulative ERA of 4.05, and that's despite pitching roughly half his games in McAfee Coliseum, a park that's particularly tough on right-handed hitters. AT&T Park in San Francisco plays similarly, but the point is that Zito's time in Oakland has served to make his numbers look better than they really are."

Okay, while he has a point, I hate to give this idiot any bone whatsoever.

chaerulez
12-30-2006, 10:59 AM
I hope Perry knows that a lot of people already know this. Zito has always been overrated and just got overpaid.

FarWestChicago
12-30-2006, 11:01 AM
Okay, while he has a point, I hate to give this idiot any bone whatsoever.

I hope Perry knows that a lot of people already know this. Zito has always been overrated and just got overpaid.Dayn Perry: Humans require oxygen to survive

Huisj
12-30-2006, 11:17 AM
Dayn Perry: Humans require oxygen to survive

And Scott Podsednik destroys that needed oxygen with every breath he takes, because he releases CO2! He is clearly a detriment to the respiratory health of whichever team he shares a clubhouse with! He will cause the White Sox to play out of breath all season! Their VORHRP+++ rating (Value over Respiratorially Healthy Replacement Player, ballpark, climate, and league adjusted) is shot, and they have no chance of beating the A's.

Frater Perdurabo
12-30-2006, 11:20 AM
Dayn Perry: Humans require oxygen to survive

Part II: Water: Dayn Perry explains why oxygen alone isn't enough

batmanZoSo
12-30-2006, 11:29 AM
Gee no crap Dayn. :?:

Zito's not the elite pitcher he projected to be after posting that 23-win season a few years back. I think he'll fare pretty well in that park and no longer facing AL lineups, but I mean...come on.

Hendu
12-30-2006, 11:40 AM
Dayn Perry: Humans require oxygen to survive

But he'll need to back it up with statistics if he wants the FOBBs to buy it.

Domeshot17
12-30-2006, 01:49 PM
I havent read any of this. When I see Dayn Perry, I treat it the same way as I do when I see people qouting rumors from mlbtraderumors.com. Dayn Perry makes Mariotti look like a smart man.

I bet its because Pods married that supermodel wife. Perry in turn, can't find a date for new years. The jealousy rages. If Pods is ever murdered one day, I would guess Perry would be the number 1 suspect.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-30-2006, 05:25 PM
Dayn Perry makes Mariotti look like a smart man.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. I know a lot of you hate Perry because he was way ahead of the curve in pointing out over a year ago that the Sox needed to dump Podsednik. Of course, he was right.

Growing up as a Sox fan, the thing I thought that set us apart from Cubs fans was our complete objectivity about our team. Some of that has apparently been lost among a segment of the Sox fan base, who are constantly defending KW's every questionable move.

Anyway, here's another excellent point he makes in the ZIto article, the kind of analysis you will never find in a Mariotti column:

"As for the length of the deal seven years it's an awfully long time for any pitcher. In Zito's case, there's even more reason to be concerned. He's anything but an injury risk, but he's also anything but a hard thrower (in 2006, Zito sported the fourth-slowest average fastball of any AL qualifier). While there's nothing that says a pitcher must have good velocity to succeed, there is a relationship between pitch speed and how well a pitcher ages. Generally, soft tossers tend to lose their skills more quickly than, say, those cut from the Roger Clemens/Randy Johnson/John Smoltz cloth. Zito, suffice it to say, is not cut from that cloth."

itsnotrequired
12-30-2006, 06:02 PM
That's a ridiculous thing to say. I know a lot of you hate Perry because he was way ahead of the curve in pointing out over a year ago that the Sox needed to dump Podsednik. Of course, he was right.

Let's look at some more of Perry's "analysis". Some predictions from an article of his in August.


The Phillies will win the NL Wild Card
The White Sox will win the AL Wild Card
The Yankees will edge the Tigers for the best record in baseballFor everything Perry gets right, he is wrong on something else.

Chisox003
12-30-2006, 06:07 PM
That's a ridiculous thing to say. I know a lot of you hate Perry because he was way ahead of the curve in pointing out over a year ago that the Sox needed to dump Podsednik. Of course, he was right.
:rolleyes:

Please, stop. Amidst all that garbage in your post, the last sentence above is a real gem.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-30-2006, 06:58 PM
:rolleyes:

Please, stop. Amidst all that garbage in your post, the last sentence above is a real gem.

So you're content with Pods in LF, eh? :?:

FarWestChicago
12-30-2006, 11:52 PM
That's a ridiculous thing to say.The only ridiculous things said in this thread have come from you. Dayn Perry is a moron, a complete idiot. The fact you are the only one who doesn't see that is a reflection on you, not everybody else. You have chosen to idolize the wrong individual. Get over it and move on. Think for yourself. Don't let some self-professed expert do it for you. Trust me, you are smarter than that oveblown gas brain.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-31-2006, 12:29 AM
Dayn Perry is a moron, a complete idiot. The fact you are the only one who doesn't see that is a reflection on you, not everybody else.

I don't agree with everything Perry says. For instance, I didn't care for his recent book, in which he tends to overstate the obvious.

That said, it's difficult trying to have a rational discussion when the only things you and others of your ilk can muster are that Perry's a "moron, complete idiot" etc.

And it's simply ridiculous to liken him to Mariotti. Perry gave some statistically sound reasons for why the Giants may regret the Zito deal. Mariotti, on the other hand, thinks any high-dollar signing is a great signing.

Hendu
12-31-2006, 12:55 AM
That's a ridiculous thing to say. I know a lot of you hate Perry because he was way ahead of the curve in pointing out over a year ago that the Sox needed to dump Podsednik. Of course, he was right.

Growing up as a Sox fan, the thing I thought that set us apart from Cubs fans was our complete objectivity about our team. Some of that has apparently been lost among a segment of the Sox fan base, who are constantly defending KW's every questionable move.


Some of those "questionable moves" led to our first World Series in 88 frigging years. So yeah, KW deserves our trust for at least another year.

Also, it's easy to say that we need to replace Pods without offering a reasonable replacement, not one who we'd have to throw ridiculous long-term money at.

StillMissOzzie
12-31-2006, 02:24 AM
That's a ridiculous thing to say. I know a lot of you hate Perry because he was way ahead of the curve in pointing out over a year ago that the Sox needed to dump Podsednik. Of course, he was right.

Growing up as a Sox fan, the thing I thought that set us apart from Cubs fans was our complete objectivity about our team. Some of that has apparently been lost among a segment of the Sox fan base, who are constantly defending KW's every questionable move.

Anyway, here's another excellent point he makes in the ZIto article, the kind of analysis you will never find in a Mariotti column:

"As for the length of the deal seven years it's an awfully long time for any pitcher. In Zito's case, there's even more reason to be concerned. He's anything but an injury risk, but he's also anything but a hard thrower (in 2006, Zito sported the fourth-slowest average fastball of any AL qualifier). While there's nothing that says a pitcher must have good velocity to succeed, there is a relationship between pitch speed and how well a pitcher ages. Generally, soft tossers tend to lose their skills more quickly than, say, those cut from the Roger Clemens/Randy Johnson/John Smoltz cloth. Zito, suffice it to say, is not cut from that cloth."

Quick, get Jamie Moyer on the phone and tell him he should have retired 10 years ago because Dayn Perry said that, as a soft tosser, he shouldn't age well. I think that, if anything, a lefty that can throw strikes can find a job in MLB until they can't find their way to the mound any more.

I still think that Zito is overrated and overpaid, but I don't think that he is in the same injury risk boat as a fireballer.

SMO
:gulp:

Chisox003
12-31-2006, 02:34 AM
So you're content with Pods in LF, eh? :?:
Content? Absolutely. After seeing what kind of contracts Pierre, Roberts and the like recieved this offseason, I think Podsednik is a steal. Barring any injury set-backs, I'd even go as far as saying he'll be excellent in the lead-off spot and sufficient with the glove next year.

But I'm not Dayn Perry, so what good is my non-expert opinion? :rolleyes:

Mercy!
12-31-2006, 02:44 AM
So just to recap:

Everyone posting in the thread thus far basically agrees with Dayn Perry's conclusions regarding the Barry Zito/Giants deal.

Carry on.

jabrch
12-31-2006, 03:37 AM
That's a ridiculous thing to say. I know a lot of you hate Perry because he was way ahead of the curve in pointing out over a year ago that the Sox needed to dump Podsednik. Of course, he was right.

OF COURSE

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/podsesc01.shtml

In his 4 seasons in the majors, two of them were EXCELLENT. Based on last year (.261/.330) you are saying that OF COURSE, he needs to go?

That is pure conjecture without any reason to believe it tis true other than hope.

Arkham
12-31-2006, 05:19 AM
Quick, get Jamie Moyer on the phone and tell him he should have retired 10 years ago because Dayn Perry said that, as a soft tosser, he shouldn't age well.

Oh Lord...Ignoring the fact that Moyer hasn't actually had a good season since 2003 (he stunk in '04 and the last two years he's posted league-average ERAs despite pitching in the league's best pitcher's park) and similarly ignoring that Moyer wasn't always a soft-tosser, please do not pretend a single contrary example invalidates a general trend. If you look at B-R's 'through age X' comparisons, you'll see that the numbers for Moyer's are slightly higher than Frank Thomas's, meaning that there are are about as many pitchers who've had careers like Moyer as there are hitters who've had careers like Frank.

I think that, if anything, a lefty that can throw strikes can find a job in MLB until they can't find their way to the mound any more.

Did you notice the 15% jump in his already-high walk rate last year? Throwing strikes may be a problem here.

FarWestChicago
12-31-2006, 07:24 AM
That said, it's difficult trying to have a rational discussion when the only things you and others of your ilk can muster are that Perry's a "moron, complete idiot" etc.The onus is on you to look at the thousands of posts in various threads in WTS. He has been appropriately crucified many times over. It's not our job to rehash old news for you. Sheesh, I thought you statheads prided yourselves on doing exhaustive research. :tsk:

ilsox7
12-31-2006, 08:15 AM
The onus is on you to look at the thousands of posts in various threads in WTS. He has been appropriately crucified many times over. It's not our job to rehash old news for you.

Some people (Daver specifically) actually did provide links to old threads that went into detail about why Perry is an idiot. This particular poster explicitly ignored those links and went on to ask further why Perry is crucified around here. It's a lost cause with folks like this.

This is a classic case of someone coming up with a conclusion (Perry is a good baseball mind) before proper analysis and then ignoring all data that contrasts their pre-determined conclusion.

ondafarm
12-31-2006, 09:16 AM
As something of a stathead myself and a former (minor-league) player, I'd like to both defend and damm statistics in the same post.

First, as a player, you never really worry about complex stats at all. Your batting average, rbis, homers, homers given up, wins-loss, gidp, walks, strikeouts, things like that most guys had most of those in some sense in their heads. But at the end of my first season's last game, I was interviewed and asked about my record-setting performance. I wasn't quite certain on my translation so I asked for a little time and asked around. It turns out I'd broken three season records: steals by a catcher, sac-flies and team ERA when catching. As in, when I caught, the pitching staff's ERA dropped from around 4.50 the previous year to just under 3.25 my year. Nobody had ever made as large a drop in the Industrial League. I had no idea. Well, I had the number of my steals, had an educated guess as to sac flies and had a notion of team ERA but records(?)

My point is, I doubt that baseball players care about what Dayn Perry says. Or Moronotti, although he seems more bitter. Nobody likes to be called names and guys don't need to be told they aren't performing up to snuff. Pods puts more pressure on himself than Perry ever could. Not to say he hasn't heard the name but I doubt he reads his articles or buys the book.

Craig Grebeck
12-31-2006, 10:05 AM
OF COURSE

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/podsesc01.shtml

In his 4 seasons in the majors, two of them were EXCELLENT. Based on last year (.261/.330) you are saying that OF COURSE, he needs to go?

That is pure conjecture without any reason to believe it tis true other than hope.
What is your definition of excellent?

santo=dorf
12-31-2006, 11:08 AM
What is your definition of excellent?
Yeah really. 2005 was slightly above average even with his great first half. To be fair, Scott was injured in the second half, but I won't give him the nod of having an "excellent" season that year.

jabrch
12-31-2006, 11:41 AM
What is your definition of excellent?

.314/.379 with 43 SB and .290/.351 with 59 SB (and all the other numbers from those two seasons) were excellent years.

jabrch
12-31-2006, 11:44 AM
Yeah really. 2005 was slightly above average even with his great first half. To be fair, Scott was injured in the second half, but I won't give him the nod of having an "excellent" season that year.

MLB GMs would disagree with your analysis. He hit .290/.351 and stole 59 bases in 129 games. He was a catalyst for the offense.

Arkham
01-01-2007, 04:24 AM
MLB GMs would disagree with your analysis. He hit .290/.351 and stole 59 bases in 129 games. He was a catalyst for the offense.

That's what we're going to call 'excellence' from a corner outfielder? .290/.351/.349? (Don't ignore slugging just because it's not Pods' strong suit. His steals recoup some of that, but given that his 59 steals came in 82 attempts, it's not really that much.) Here are the other players who played at least 110 games in left in the AL in 2005:

Manny Ramirez: .292/.388/.594
Hideki Matsui: .305/.367/.496
Frank Catalanotto: .301/.367/.451
Coco Crisp: .300/.345/.465
Carl Crawford: .301/.331/.469
Kevin Mench: .264/.328/.469
Shannon Stewart: .264/.323/.388

Every one of them, even Shannon Stewart in the worst year of his career, had a higher OPS than Scotty. Now if you drop the threshold to 100 games in left, you add in some poorer players like an injury-ridden Garret Anderson, Jay Payton and Eric Byrnes, but does that remotely resemble the demarcation of excellence to you? Better than Eric Byrnes?

And it was an MLB GM that gave $55M to Gil Meche. Let's not necessarily assume anything an MLB GM says is Holy Writ.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 10:24 AM
That's what we're going to call 'excellence' from a corner outfielder? .290/.351/.349? (Don't ignore slugging just because it's not Pods' strong suit. His steals recoup some of that, but given that his 59 steals came in 82 attempts, it's not really that much.) Here are the other players who played at least 110 games in left in the AL in 2005:

Manny Ramirez: .292/.388/.594
Hideki Matsui: .305/.367/.496
Frank Catalanotto: .301/.367/.451
Coco Crisp: .300/.345/.465
Carl Crawford: .301/.331/.469
Kevin Mench: .264/.328/.469
Shannon Stewart: .264/.323/.388

Every one of them, even Shannon Stewart in the worst year of his career, had a higher OPS than Scotty. Now if you drop the threshold to 100 games in left, you add in some poorer players like an injury-ridden Garret Anderson, Jay Payton and Eric Byrnes, but does that remotely resemble the demarcation of excellence to you? Better than Eric Byrnes?

And it was an MLB GM that gave $55M to Gil Meche. Let's not necessarily assume anything an MLB GM says is Holy Writ.

Of that list of people, 2 of the 7 have OBPs higher than Pods did. Only 3. Manny and Matsui; both of whom made over 15 times what Pods made and Catt who just signed a deal paying him over twice what Pods makes.

You can talk about OPS all you want - or SLG - but I don't care. I will not engage in comparing a leadoff hitter to a #3/#4 hitter based on their slg or their ops. You want to compare PK, Dye or Thome to those guys - fine. But it is stupid to compare a leadoff hitter to a #3 or #4 hitter on OPS/SLG.

Pods had a .351 OBP. Compared to the 7 guys you listed, that was better than 5 of them. .290/.350 from your leadoff hitter? EXCELLENT! I'd take that right now without a doubt. Sure - it could be even better - but for 2mm, I'll take .290/.350 with about 50 SBs and call that excellent.

Pods is signed for 2mm next year. I'd take Pods for 2 over any of them. You want Manny? That means you lose Pods, plus PK. You want Matsui? Try losing Pods, Dye and Iguchi.

.290/.350 for a leadoff hitting LF is excellent.

santo=dorf
01-01-2007, 12:42 PM
Of that list of people, 2 of the 7 have OBPs higher than Pods did. Only 3. Manny and Matsui; both of whom made over 15 times what Pods made and Catt who just signed a deal paying him over twice what Pods makes.

You can talk about OPS all you want - or SLG - but I don't care. I will not engage in comparing a leadoff hitter to a #3/#4 hitter based on their slg or their ops. You want to compare PK, Dye or Thome to those guys - fine. But it is stupid to compare a leadoff hitter to a #3 or #4 hitter on OPS/SLG.

Pods had a .351 OBP. Compared to the 7 guys you listed, that was better than 5 of them. .290/.350 from your leadoff hitter? EXCELLENT! I'd take that right now without a doubt. Sure - it could be even better - but for 2mm, I'll take .290/.350 with about 50 SBs and call that excellent.

Pods is signed for 2mm next year. I'd take Pods for 2 over any of them. You want Manny? That means you lose Pods, plus PK. You want Matsui? Try losing Pods, Dye and Iguchi.

.290/.350 for a leadoff hitting LF is excellent.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?seasonType=2&type=reg&sort=onBasePct&minpa=500&split=109&season=2005&pos=all&hand=a&league=mlb&ageMin=17&ageMax=51
Batting #1, min 500 PA's, 2005
Pods' OBP was 9th out of 17th.

That's not "excellent," it's average.:rolleyes:

I also find it very hypocritical for someone like yourself to rip Beane and his book, yet you talk about a player's salary in his performance evaluation.

Give it a rest. Pods hasn't been THAT good. He had one great half (.379 OBP in 2005 at the break.)

jabrch
01-01-2007, 01:21 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?seasonType=2&type=reg&sort=onBasePct&minpa=500&split=109&season=2005&pos=all&hand=a&league=mlb&ageMin=17&ageMax=51
Batting #1, min 500 PA's, 2005
Pods' OBP was 9th out of 17th.

That's not "excellent," it's average.:rolleyes:

Actually, it is excellent in my opinion, when looked at in context, instead of just picking bits and pieces.

Quick look - tell me what the difference is between #9 and #6? 15 times on base more for #6, who had 33 more plate appearances. If they had the same amount of PA, you are talking about under 5 freaking runs per season.



I also find it very hypocritical for someone like yourself to rip Beane and his book, yet you talk about a player's salary in his performance evaluation.

Bull****.

I have never said that a players salary doesn't have something to do with his value. That's not my problem with Beane. I'm not going to go back down that road, but it is absolutely not hypocritical for me to believe that player who made 700K and put up a .290/.350 season and stole almost 60 bases had an excellent season. It would be hypocritical if I started to talk just about one statistic. It would be hypocritical if I starting talking about Pods DRIPS, CHIPS, SKIPS, VORP, WARP, TORP or his XO+. But I am not - because that would be hypocritical.

Domeshot17
01-01-2007, 01:43 PM
If Pods hit 30 home runs and had an OPS of .850 plus along with 59 steals, wouldnt that essentially make him one of the top 3 players in the game?

Pods wasnt great last year, but he wasnt the problem. Atleast not the main one. Pods didnt blow saves and leads in the late innings of games. Pods didnt give up 7 runs every 6 innings he started down the stretch. Pods wasnt even one of the top 2 worst offensive players in the lineup. Another big part of the Pods equation is who hits around him in the lineup. Our 8-9 hitters were 2 of the worst in the AL. Pods has no one hitting in front of him, which is going to hurt him.

Does he need to improve? Yes, but he isnt even one of our top 4 holes.

Arkham
01-01-2007, 02:19 PM
Of that list of people, 2 of the 7 have OBPs higher than Pods did. Only 3. Manny and Matsui; both of whom made over 15 times what Pods made and Catt who just signed a deal paying him over twice what Pods makes.

So we're no longer discussing excellence then? Is this some sort of E/$ ratio, excellence per contract dollar? Manny Ramirez makes so much money he's actually just an average player?

You can talk about OPS all you want - or SLG - but I don't care. I will not engage in comparing a leadoff hitter to a #3/#4 hitter based on their slg or their ops. You want to compare PK, Dye or Thome to those guys - fine. But it is stupid to compare a leadoff hitter to a #3 or #4 hitter on OPS/SLG.
So now you're saying he's not an excellent left-fielder, but he's an excellent leadoff hitter, (or at least that he was in 2005.) Okay, fine, lets compare Pods' performance to that of other AL leadoff hitters that year. Here are the other hitters who took at least 300 ABs from the top of the order in the AL in 2005:

Derek Jeter: .309/.388/.450
Johnny Damon: .316/.366/.439
Brian Roberts: .314/.387/.515
Carl Crawford: .301/.331/.469
Grady Sizemore: .289/.348/.484
David DeJesus: .293/.359/.445
Ichiro Suzuki: .303/.350/.436
Chone Figgins: .290/.352/.397
Shannon Stewart: .280/.328/.398

While none of these guys is Manny Ramirez in the power department, every other AL leadoff hitter outslugged Podsednik in 2005. And again, every other leadoff hitter who was a leadoff hitter for most of the season had a higher OPS than Podsednik. Quite a few of them had a higher OBP than Podsednik as well. Even if we wanted to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that hitting for extra bases isn't a useful skill for a leadoff hitter, his OBP would come in 6th out of the 10 qualifying players. That's not excellence, it's mediocrity, and it's only mediocrity if you ignore every single statistic BUT on-base percentage.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 02:42 PM
So we're no longer discussing excellence then? Is this some sort of E/$ ratio, excellence per contract dollar? Manny Ramirez makes so much money he's actually just an average player?

Nope - he's excellent too.


So now you're saying he's not an excellent left-fielder, but he's an excellent leadoff hitter, (or at least that he was in 2005.)

Nope - I said he had an excellent season. Everyone else wanted to quantify it and argue with me.

While none of these guys is Manny Ramirez in the power department, every other AL leadoff hitter outslugged Podsednik in 2005.

And I don't give a damn what my leadoff hitters SLG is.

And again, every other leadoff hitter who was a leadoff hitter for most of the season had a higher OPS than Podsednik.

Which is a factor of SLG. Since his OBP was better than most of them.

Quite a few of them had a higher OBP than Podsednik as well.

very few - and even fewer if you factor in the cost of that production.

Even if we wanted to stick our heads in the sand

Kiss my ass.

and pretend that hitting for extra bases isn't a useful skill for a leadoff hitter

Which nobody said - I just said I'm not going to measure a leadoff hitter on that. It's a nice bonus, but not what he needs to do most.

You are welcome to not like Pods or what he delivered in 2005. But if you look at what he did, and what it cost for him to do it, .290/.350 for 700K is excellent production.

santo=dorf
01-01-2007, 02:58 PM
This is insane.

First Jabrch says Pods' 2005 was excellent, and that MLB GM's would agree with him.
Then he says that it is his "opinion" that it was excellent. I suppose all 30 share the same opinion too? Since when has being middle of he pack been considered "excellent?" I sure wish I had graders and professors at U of I that said my work was "excellent" after getting a C on it.

Originally Posted by Arkham http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1452405#post1452405)
And again, every other leadoff hitter who was a leadoff hitter for most of the season had a higher OPS than Podsednik.

Which is a factor of SLG. Since his OBP was better than most of them.

That is complete ****ing horse**** and you know it. I just did your homework and showed you THE FACTS and he was tied for 9th in OBP of the 17 everyday "leadoff hitters." There were 8 guys better, and he was better than only 7 others. Using the same spectrum I suppose it would be logical for me to call his 2005 OBP a "complete disaster."

And to say something like you don't care at all what a player's slugging percentage is completely foolish. Pods is only guaranteed to come up with the bases empty with nobody out once a game. What good is a player if he can only slap infield singles and drop bunts? When that guy comes up to bat with guys on, he's worthless. Look at guys like Nook Logan and Wily Taveras.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 03:18 PM
I suppose all 30 share the same opinion too?

You know full well I never said that.

Since when has being middle of he pack been considered "excellent?"

Look at how they stratisfy. After the first few, the difference between the bottom of the top 1/4 and Pods is marginal. (.351 vs .356 or something like that)

That is complete ****ing horsehit and you know it. I just did your homework and showed you THE FACTS and he was tied for 9th in OBP of the 17 everyday "leadoff hitters." There were 8 guys better, and he was better than only 7 others.

See above. Oh, and by the freaking way, you were nice to talk about the 17 every day leadoff hitters. I guess that means that 13 teams that couldn't fill their leadoff hitter spot with someone good enough to play every day shouldn't count? There are 30 major league teams. I would consider Scott's 2005 production excellent when compared against the production that 30 teams got from their leadoff hitter. I'm really surprised this is such an arguement.

Does someone have the stats of each team's productivity from the leadoff spot? I'd be very curious to see it.

Look at some of those numbers you posted anyhow. Brad Wilkerson? As a leadoff hitter, he hit .175/.190/.375. Is that better than Pods .290/.351/.350? How about everyone's favorite LF/CF/SS/2B/3B? Figgy had a .250/.321/.330 line when leading off. I'll take Pods .290/.351/.350 any day over that. Neither of those guys had to deal with leading off most of the season, so by using them as leadoff hitters (ESPN hosed your arguement) it isn't quite so accurate.

Using the same spectrum I suppose it would be logical for me to call his 2005 OBP a "complete disaster."

You can if you want to. I think that would highly inaccurate when compared to all 30 MLB teams and their leadoff productivity. And I don't think "complete disaster" is the opposite of excellent. It sounds more like the opposite of complete success, which nobody, including myself, used to describe his season in 2005.

And to say something like you don't care at all what a player's slugging percentage is completely foolish.

Then I'm a fool...but I don't care what my 700K leadoff hitter slugs if he has a .290/.350/50SB line. I don't care about my pitchers SB total. I don't care about my 1Bs assists. They are statisics that I don't care about. If you want a leadoff hitter with a higher slugging percentage, then I understand why you don't like Pods. That's cool. Want to spend 15mm for Jeter? That's ok - now find me 18.6mm of other players that you would have cut from the 2005 team. How about Tadahito (2.3), Uribe (2.15), JD (4mm), Freddy (8mm) and AJ (2.25)? What's that you say? We are better off with Pods and those guys leading off instead of Jeter and a bunch of guys having to come from the farm in 2005 to play C, 2B, RF and SP? I thought so.

Pods is only guaranteed to come up with the bases empty with nobody out once a game. What good is a player if he can only slap infield singles and drop bunts? When that guy comes up to bat with guys on, he's worthless. Look at guys like Nook Logan and Wily Taveras.

He is guaranteed to bat after #8 and #9 and before #2-5 every time. His job is the same. Would I RATHER have a guy like Derek Jeter leading off? Sure - in a perfect world. But that's not a viable option. For $700K, for the job that was asked of Scott, his production was, in my opinion, excellent.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 03:35 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=7&seasonType=2&type=type1&sort=runs&split=109&season=2006

I found what I was talking about.

Pods was .290/.351/.350 in 2005

There are 6 teams who were significantly better. The difference between that and Oakland's .290/.357/.390 and Atlanta's .295/.356/.435 is statistically insignificant to the tune of about 2 runs on a season if you take .006 * 600 * about 47% (Pods R/AB). Cinci (.272/.352/.390) and AZ (.265/.351/.378) are also within a single handful of runs scored difference. Meanwhile, no team got more SBs from their leadoff hitter (NONE) than the Sox. I know some people don't care about SBs (that's their choice) and I know the arguement about the CS - so save it. But that doesn't quantify what having that thread does to a defense, a pitcher and a catcher also.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=9&seasonType=2&type=type2&sort=stolenBases&split=109&season=2005


You can argue it either way. It depends on your perspective, your definions and your philosophy. If you don't think Pods 2005 was excellent, that's ok. But if you compare Pods 2005 to other team's production from the leadoff spot, I can't think of too many teams that had production that is beyond a shadow of a doubt better. (NYY, Baltimore, Pittsburgh [Matt Lawton, Freddy Sanchez and Chris Duffy], STL, Boston and Milwaukee) Of those teams, Brady Clark sounds available - his 2006 was much worse than 2005. Lawton is done. Boston has a very unconventional approach to the leadoff spot. It would never fit within our system. Eck had a great year, but if you compare his career line of .283/.351, it's no better than Pods .290/.351 that we are debating. Sure - we'd love Jeter (who isn't a leadoff hitter anymore), Damon or Brian Roberts, but they are not available, nor affordable.

.290/.351 leading off, for 700K...EXCELLENT.

Arkham
01-01-2007, 05:00 PM
Nope - I said he had an excellent season. Everyone else wanted to quantify it and argue with me.

There's a reason for that. I compared him to other AL leftfielders and pointed out that his season was not excellent by those standards. You argued that he as a leadoff hitter, the standards should be different. I then compared him to other AL leadoff hitters and again showed that his season was average at best. When you quantify his 2005 season, it becomes apparent that it was not, in fact, excellent.

And I don't give a damn what my leadoff hitters SLG is.

Good for you. Meanwhile, a double remains better than a single, a triple is better than both, and a home run still scores at least one run regardless of where it comes in the order. That you don't care doesn't affect reality.

Which is a factor of SLG. Since his OBP was better than most of them.

No, it wasn't. He was 6th out of 10. If you want to call it 6th out of 14, comparing him to the teams who didn't HAVE one player who took the majority of at-bats from the first spot in the order, go ahead, but we're now in the realm of "slightly above average", not "excellent".

very few - and even fewer if you factor in the cost of that production.

5 out of 14 possible comparitives (and 10 realistic comparitives) is not very few, and unless we're back to the E/$ ratio, the size of his bank account isn't a factor.

Kiss my ass.

Well I've been attempting to reason with you, if that's the portion of your anatomy where the logic centers are located...

Which nobody said

And I don't give a damn what my leadoff hitters SLG is.

Well somebody said that. If it wasn't you, you really shouldn't share your username with morons.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-01-2007, 05:06 PM
Some people (Daver specifically) actually did provide links to old threads that went into detail about why Perry is an idiot. This particular poster explicitly ignored those links and went on to ask further why Perry is crucified around here. It's a lost cause with folks like this.

This is a classic case of someone coming up with a conclusion (Perry is a good baseball mind) before proper analysis and then ignoring all data that contrasts their pre-determined conclusion.

Sigh.

Look, the only reason some of you hate Perry so much is because he has for over a year pointed out what a drain Pods is on the Sox offense. SO TELL ME, WHAT "DATA" RUNS COUNTER TO HIS CONCLUSION THAT PODS IS NOT A VERY GOOD LF???

SABRSox
01-01-2007, 05:16 PM
Sigh.

Look, the only reason some of you hate Perry so much is because he has for over a year pointed out what a drain Pods is on the Sox offense. SO TELL ME, WHAT "DATA" RUNS COUNTER TO HIS CONCLUSION THAT PODS IS NOT A VERY GOOD LF???

The "data" you seek is not quantifiable. His ability to change the way a pitcher thinks/acts on the mound when he is on base can't be currently measured by sabermetrics.

Look, I think Pods would be better served as the team's 4th OF, but I also realize lead-off hitters don't grow on trees. When he's healthy, he's pretty decent in that role.

Also, as a stathead myself, I think Dayn Perry is full of ****. He likes to pick and choose data to skew his articles in a certain direction. If he actually watched Pods play (as opposed to looking at a spreadsheet) he'd see things he does that aren't quantifiable. I'd be interested in seeing what happens to pitchers' strikes thrown when Podsednik is on first. I'm hypothesizing they throw less strikes when he's on base than compared to the rest of the game.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 05:22 PM
Sigh.

Look, the only reason some of you hate Perry so much is because he has for over a year pointed out what a drain Pods is on the Sox offense. SO TELL ME, WHAT "DATA" RUNS COUNTER TO HIS CONCLUSION THAT PODS IS NOT A VERY GOOD LF???

List all the leadoff hitters in Major League baseball who are significantly better than Pods in terms of both avg and obp. It's a short list. Now take out any of them who make more than twice what he makes. Your list got shorter. Perry's arguement was ridiculous as it measured Scott based on things that Scott is not asked to do, and that leadoff hitters don't need to do to be successful.


Your leadoff hitter hits before your best 3 or 4 bats. You want him getting on base, and then being able to take extra bases, and score when your best hitters get their rips. That's what a leadoff hitter does. If Pods was a #3 hitter, he'd be terrible. But he's not. He's asked to do different things.

Look at Jeter, for example. In 2005, he lead off. Why's that? Because the Yanks had no better options. But they acquired Damon, and look what happened? Jeter isn't a leadoff hitter. He moves to a more logical spot in the order for him.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 05:31 PM
I'm hypothesizing they throw less strikes when he's on base than compared to the rest of the game.

We also know pitchers are forced to throw more fastballs. I wonder how hitters do when Pods is on first compared to when he is not? I imagine they perform much better as they are more likely to see fastballs. Add to that the fact that IFs have to play closer to 2B, catchers are prepping for the throw down, and 1B have to always play to hold him on.

Scott disrupts pitchers, defenses and catchers. That doesn't show up in a stat sheet.

ilsox7
01-01-2007, 05:33 PM
Sigh.

Look, the only reason some of you hate Perry so much is because he has for over a year pointed out what a drain Pods is on the Sox offense. SO TELL ME, WHAT "DATA" RUNS COUNTER TO HIS CONCLUSION THAT PODS IS NOT A VERY GOOD LF???

Let's try the reading comprehension thing again. My post (clearly) was about Perry in general. It has absolutely nothing to do with Pods. It only has to do with the fact that Perry is an idiot. He has proved this over and over again, yet you keep harping on how great of a baseball mind he is. All some of us are trying to say is that Perry is not too bright. Might he be right about Pods? Sure, fine, I do not really care. It still does not take anything away from the fact that he has a lack of baseball intelligence.

For some reason, though, you repeatedly ask why some of us cannot stand Perry. Yet when reasons are given to you, links posted, and suggestions to do a search of the website to see numerous examples of this, you completely ignore those suggestions and again harp on Pods being awful. I cannot help if you either cannot comprehend the words some of us type, cannot click on a link to see past discussions, or cannot figure out how to click search and type 'Dayn Perry.'

Daver
01-01-2007, 05:34 PM
Sigh.

Look, the only reason some of you hate Perry so much is because he has for over a year pointed out what a drain Pods is on the Sox offense. SO TELL ME, WHAT "DATA" RUNS COUNTER TO HIS CONCLUSION THAT PODS IS NOT A VERY GOOD LF???

No, I dislike him because he is a moron that does not understand the concept of how a baseball game is played.

When he comes up with a stat that measures how a pitcher is affected when a known base stealer is on first, or how it changes the catchers pitch call. or how it affects the pitches seen by the hitter behind him, then maybe I might find something worth looking at, till then, Dayn Perry can kiss my ass while he studies his spread sheets.

TheVulture
01-01-2007, 06:12 PM
Who cares what Pods did in 2005, the question is - what will Pods do in 2007? Based on what I saw last season, I'm not optimistic. His defense, while always poor, is now downright lousy, and he's slowing. He's a one dimensional player to begin with, and as such, his value is nearing worthlessness as he slows. Personally, I'd rather just go with Sweeney this year.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-01-2007, 06:41 PM
Let's try the reading comprehension thing again. My post (clearly) was about Perry in general. It has absolutely nothing to do with Pods. It only has to do with the fact that Perry is an idiot. He has proved this over and over again, yet you keep harping on how great of a baseball mind he is. All some of us are trying to say is that Perry is not too bright. Might he be right about Pods? Sure, fine, I do not really care. It still does not take anything away from the fact that he has a lack of baseball intelligence.

For some reason, though, you repeatedly ask why some of us cannot stand Perry. Yet when reasons are given to you, links posted, and suggestions to do a search of the website to see numerous examples of this, you completely ignore those suggestions and again harp on Pods being awful. I cannot help if you either cannot comprehend the words some of us type, cannot click on a link to see past discussions, or cannot figure out how to click search and type 'Dayn Perry.'

OK. I'll try the "reading comprehension thing." In one of your previous posts, you stated:

"This is a classic case of someone coming up with a conclusion (Perry is a good baseball mind) before proper analysis and then ignoring all data that contrasts their pre-determined conclusion." (Emphasis added).

The words "this is a classic case" refers to something specific, not about Perry in general, as you claim. AT BEST, your word choice results in an ambiguity--nothing is "clear" about it. Since you are a law student, you should try being more precise with your writing. Perhaps you ought to take a course in statutory interpretation.

You should also cut out the sarcasm.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-01-2007, 06:43 PM
Who cares what Pods did in 2005, the question is - what will Pods do in 2007? Based on what I saw last season, I'm not optimistic. His defense, while always poor, is now downright lousy, and he's slowing. He's a one dimensional player to begin with, and as such, his value is nearing worthlessness as he slows. Personally, I'd rather just go with Sweeney this year.

Amen. Of course, it would have been NICE if KW had bothered to pick up a LF in exchange for one of the valuable pitching commodities he traded away this post-season (Cotts, Garcia, or McCarthy).

itsnotrequired
01-01-2007, 07:10 PM
OK. I'll try the "reading comprehension thing." In one of your previous posts, you stated:

"This is a classic case of someone coming up with a conclusion (Perry is a good baseball mind) before proper analysis and then ignoring all data that contrasts their pre-determined conclusion." (Emphasis added).

The words "this is a classic case" refers to something specific, not about Perry in general, as you claim. AT BEST, your word choice results in an ambiguity--nothing is "clear" about it. Since you are a law student, you should try being more precise with your writing. Perhaps you ought to take a course in statutory interpretation.

You should also cut out the sarcasm.

The "specific" case he was referencing is you and your thought process, not Pods or Perry.

itsnotrequired
01-01-2007, 07:13 PM
Amen. Of course, it would have been NICE if KW had bothered to pick up a LF in exchange for one of the valuable pitching commodities he traded away this post-season (Cotts, Garcia, or McCarthy).

What left fielders that can also lead off are available? Some people seem to think these type of players grow on trees.

ilsox7
01-01-2007, 07:54 PM
The "specific" case he was referencing is you and your thought process, not Pods or Perry.

Thank you.

FarWestChicago
01-01-2007, 07:59 PM
Also, as a stathead myself, I think Dayn Perry is full of ****. He likes to pick and choose data to skew his articles in a certain direction. You may call yourself a stathead, but I've always thought of you as a guy who likes stats but is also capable of thinking on his own, kind of like ma-gaga. :D:

itsnotrequired
01-01-2007, 08:00 PM
Thank you.

No problem...and I'm not even in law school or ever taken a course in statutory interpretation.:redneck

jabrch
01-01-2007, 08:37 PM
You may call yourself a stathead, but I've always thought of you as a guy who likes stats but is also capable of thinking on his own, kind of like ma-gaga. :D:


That's a great point West. Believe it or not, I use statistics every day in my job to review what happened and to make projections and resource allocation decisions. However my decisions are machine based - where the variance between prediction and execution is usually measured in .0001, and not based on things like human beings who's performance varies from moment to moment.

I appreciate using stats in baseball to tell me what happened - and to compare to like items after the fact. I know some people won't believe that.

Keep in mind that Vegas odds, as we discussed in another thread, are designed strictly to get the same amount of betting on each side and do not often represent the actual odds of something happening. (they'd have to give much better odds to teams like KC, Pitt, etc. because otherwise nobody would bet on them, and the odds are always overinflated on the Cubs, Yanks, Red Sox, etc. since they will get a large amount of betting regardless of the actual odds.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-01-2007, 09:13 PM
The "specific" case he was referencing is you and your thought process, not Pods or Perry.

As I stated above, AT BEST it's ambiguous.

In any event, the topic was Barry Zito. I think Perry provided some solid reasons for why the move was a questionable one for the Giants.

ilsox7
01-01-2007, 09:23 PM
As I stated above, AT BEST it's ambiguous.



It's only ambiguous to someone who either did not read what I said or wants it to be ambiguous.

Here is what I said:

This is a classic case of someone coming up with a conclusion (Perry is a good baseball mind) before proper analysis and then ignoring all data that contrasts their pre-determined conclusion.
See the nifty parenthetical after the word conclusion? That means that the conclusion I was referring to was that Perry is a good baseball mind. Further, the post I quoted before was FWC's direct response to you, therefore there is no ambiguity when I used the word "someone."

FYI:

parenthetical
adjective1. qualifying or explaining;

See, my original use of the parenthetical served the purpose of explaining what I meant when I used the word conclusion. If I had left out the fact that the conclusion I was talking about was your assertion of Perry's supreme baseball knowledge, then you'd have a case that it was ambiguous. Sadly, for you, that is not what happened.

itsnotrequired
01-01-2007, 09:26 PM
As I stated above, AT BEST it's ambiguous.

In any event, the topic was Barry Zito. I think Perry provided some solid reasons for why the move was a questionable one for the Giants.

His thoughts seemed pretty straight-forward to me.:dunno:

As for the Zito signing, you don't need some type of advanced baseball spreadsheet to recognize risks in a 7 year, $126 million contract. He can throw all the stats he wants at us but it is unnecessary.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-01-2007, 09:31 PM
It's only ambiguous to someone who either did not read what I said or wants it to be ambiguous.

Here is what I said:


See the nifty parenthetical after the word conclusion? That means that the conclusion I was referring to was that Perry is a good baseball mind. Further, the post I quoted before was FWC's direct response to you, therefore there is no ambiguity when I used the word "someone."

FYI:


See, my original use of the parenthetical served the purpose of explaining what I meant when I used the word conclusion. If I had left out the fact that the conclusion I was talking about was your assertion of Perry's supreme baseball knowledge, then you'd have a case that it was ambiguous. Sadly, for you, that is not what happened.

Um, OK. The only one guilty of results-oriented thinking is you, though. I never said that Perry had a "supreme baseball mind." I simply said that I think he was right on target with respect to 2 issues: (1) Pods is hurting the White Sox; and (2) the Giants will regret spending all that money on Zito. Nothing more nothing less.

In any event, I've searched through all the previous historical threads which you claim are so insightful with respect to criticism of Perry. Two themes emerge. (1) "Perry is an idiot, moron," etc.; and (2) Perry is a "propeller-head." Not exactly rational discourse, my friend.

SABRSox
01-01-2007, 09:33 PM
You may call yourself a stathead, but I've always thought of you as a guy who likes stats but is also capable of thinking on his own, kind of like ma-gaga. :D:

Thanks. I appreciate not being lumped in with these BP sycophants who come here and post with a shockingly agressive tone.

itsnotrequired
01-01-2007, 09:41 PM
Um, OK. The only one guilty of results-oriented thinking is you, though. I never said that Perry had a "supreme baseball mind." I simply said that I think he was right on target with respect to 2 issues: (1) Pods is hurting the White Sox; and (2) the Giants will regret spending all that money on Zito. Nothing more nothing less.

Whether he is "spot on" or not is irrelevant. For every one thing he gets right, he gets one (or more) wrong. He supposedly analyzes and researches all his predictions to give them validity but when half of them (or more) don't pan out, what does it say about his technique? You might as well just flip a coin at that point. And that's why people take issue with him and others that try to predict future baseball events using some type of mathematical algorithm. SABRSox said it best in another thread:

"Sabermetrics are best used to provide a statistical, historical context, and should have very little to do with predicting the future, especially individual player performance."

Craig Grebeck
01-01-2007, 09:49 PM
What left fielders that can also lead off are available? Some people seem to think these type of players grow on trees.
Tadahito can leadoff just fine.

ilsox7
01-01-2007, 09:52 PM
Um, OK. The only one guilty of results-oriented thinking is you, though. I never said that Perry had a "supreme baseball mind." I simply said that I think he was right on target with respect to 2 issues: (1) Pods is hurting the White Sox; and (2) the Giants will regret spending all that money on Zito. Nothing more nothing less.

In any event, I've searched through all the previous historical threads which you claim are so insightful with respect to criticism of Perry. Two themes emerge. (1) "Perry is an idiot, moron," etc.; and (2) Perry is a "propeller-head." Not exactly rational discourse, my friend.

Actually, you've started more than 1 thread specificaly about a Dayn Perry article. You've also said this:


That's a ridiculous thing to say. I know a lot of you hate Perry because he was way ahead of the curve in pointing out over a year ago that the Sox needed to dump Podsednik. Of course, he was right.

Growing up as a Sox fan, the thing I thought that set us apart from Cubs fans was our complete objectivity about our team. Some of that has apparently been lost among a segment of the Sox fan base, who are constantly defending KW's every questionable move.
So you obviously think Perry has a good deal of baseball knowledge. What you are failing to see is one can have the following two opinions at the same time: Dayn Perry is an idiot and Pods is not God's gift to LF.

No one (or very few) around here are saying that Pods is great b/c Dayn Perry says he is not. We are simply saying that Dayn Perry is an idiot. The Pods discussion is completely independent of this.

You are the one who continually claims everyone hates Perry solely b/c he has a thing for Pods.

The ironic thing is that you claim to be objective, which sets you (and Sox fans) apart from Cub fans. Yet when people assert Perry is not worth the 5 minutes it takes to read him, you ignore the specific links and threads people cite to as their reasoning. And then after ignoring those links and threads, you now claim the only thing you found when you did a search was a vilification of both Perry and statheads. However, I took the liberty of running a simple search for "Dayn Perry" and here are 4 things I found within 5 minutes:

1. Perry was caught writing about facts that did not exist (I believe it was in reference to White Sox homeruns).

2. Perry attributed lack of appreciation of Frank Thomas to race.

3. Perry claimed the 2005 ALCS was not legitimate b/c of the umpires.

4. In one article, Perry called Ichiro one of the top ten most overrated players in MLB.

So, as you can see, the Dayn Perry hate around here is not b/c he is a stathead. It's b/c he is an idiot.

itsnotrequired
01-01-2007, 09:56 PM
Tadahito can leadoff just fine.

Sure, he COULD lead off but he is better suited batting lower in the order. I would rather have Pods leading off than Iguchi.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 10:14 PM
Tadahito can leadoff just fine.

Well - Ozzie wants to move him DOWN in the order since he's more a fit where he can leverage some of his power. Iguchi would be less effective hitting #1. He benefits at #2 from having Pods on base in front of him, and the big 3 hitting after him. He faces a lot of fastballs and a lot of strikes. I would imagine he'd post worse numbers leading off than Pods does - by a decent margin.

If you are of the ilk that believes that a team does not need a true leadoff hitter, and that you are fine with Matt Stairs, or some other guy who can walk a bit, but doesn't do much else to help a club, that's fine. That thinking is way out of line with how our manager, GM and coaches manage this team. So then your problem is not with the players who are executing their orders, it is with the management. That's not likely to be changing any time soon. If that's the case, I feel sorry for you. It will be hard to enjoy this team if your beef is with traditional baseball, including the traditional role of a leadoff hitter and a traditional #2 hitter, the use of plays like the sacrifice and the SB, and other things that this management will continue to do.

SABRSox
01-01-2007, 10:18 PM
2. Perry attributed lack of appreciation of Frank Thomas to race.

3. Perry claimed the 2005 ALCS was not legitimate b/c of the umpires.

Those 2 are by far the worst, with the Thomas thing being downright ridiculous. The lack of appreciation of Thomas is because of sportswriters. True Sox fans appreciate everything the Big Hurt did in his time here, and many of us still cheer for him.

And I'll cheer when they erect a bronze statue of Frank out on the concourse. If ever a player in this organization earned one, it's him.

ilsox7
01-01-2007, 10:30 PM
Those 2 are by far the worst, with the Thomas thing being downright ridiculous. The lack of appreciation of Thomas is because of sportswriters. True Sox fans appreciate everything the Big Hurt did in his time here, and many of us still cheer for him.

And I'll cheer when they erect a bronze statue of Frank out on the concourse. If ever a player in this organization earned one, it's him.

Agreed. I did a quick Google search and found some more interesting Dayn Perry material. Here is a link (http://asher.baseballevolution.com/perrybonehead.html)that I thought was an interesting read, displaying Perry's idiocy. It seems like a fair article b/c the author flat-out says Perry's conclusion (no parenthetical needed here b/c I identified which conclusions I spoke of before a parenthetical was needed, not withstanding this one) may be right, but his analysis that led him to the conclusion is asinine.

Craig Grebeck
01-01-2007, 10:58 PM
Well - Ozzie wants to move him DOWN in the order since he's more a fit where he can leverage some of his power. Iguchi would be less effective hitting #1. He benefits at #2 from having Pods on base in front of him, and the big 3 hitting after him. He faces a lot of fastballs and a lot of strikes. I would imagine he'd post worse numbers leading off than Pods does - by a decent margin.

If you are of the ilk that believes that a team does not need a true leadoff hitter, and that you are fine with Matt Stairs, or some other guy who can walk a bit, but doesn't do much else to help a club, that's fine. That thinking is way out of line with how our manager, GM and coaches manage this team. So then your problem is not with the players who are executing their orders, it is with the management. That's not likely to be changing any time soon. If that's the case, I feel sorry for you. It will be hard to enjoy this team if your beef is with traditional baseball, including the traditional role of a leadoff hitter and a traditional #2 hitter, the use of plays like the sacrifice and the SB, and other things that this management will continue to do.
Actually, I'm of the ilk that prefers having guys who are good at avoiding outs and getting on base. Tadahito could manage just as well as Pods, and it would allow us to upgrade perhaps our biggest hole, LF. If you're satisfied with having 5-6 good to great hitters, and 2-3 below average ones that fit the cliched "traditional baseball" role, then I feel sorry for you.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 11:39 PM
Actually, I'm of the ilk that prefers having guys who are good at avoiding outs

That's become a mantra for you folks. It's sounds nice - but it just isn't always the best thing. Guys who can do specific jobs are very important. There are such a thing as productive outs. And having certain things happen that a true leadoff hitter does can help a club out.

Tadahito could manage just as well as Pods

Not really - not if you ask him to do the things that Ozzie and KW asked Scott to do.

If you're satisfied with having 5-6 good to great hitters, and 2-3 below average ones that fit the cliched "traditional baseball" role, then I feel sorry for you.

First, don't feel sorry for me. My team, has won 189 games in two years and won the WS last year with a traditional lineup construction. (Leadoff hitter who gets on and runs, #2 hitter who handles the bat, and can move runners ahead of him, great bats in the middle, then a defensive minded SS and CF in the back end who are not great bats, but can, from time to time, be productive) Second, you continue to describe these hitters as below average because they don't do what you want them to do. I think Scott is an excellent leadoff hitter because he does EXACTLY what his manager, his GM, and I want him to do. He gets on base at a decent clip, then disrupts the pitcher, catcher and defense when he gets on. I'm thrilled with that. I feel sorry for you that your team doesn't make you happy by playing the kind of baseball you like.

You go get Matt Stairs to lead off for your team. My team has Scott Podsednik and I'm ok with that unless a better leadoff hittter comes to town. And Iguchi is not that. He should be hitting further down the order, not up.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
01-01-2007, 11:42 PM
However, I took the liberty of running a simple search for "Dayn Perry" and here are 4 things I found within 5 minutes:

1. Perry was caught writing about facts that did not exist (I believe it was in reference to White Sox homeruns).

2. Perry attributed lack of appreciation of Frank Thomas to race.

3. Perry claimed the 2005 ALCS was not legitimate b/c of the umpires.

4. In one article, Perry called Ichiro one of the top ten most overrated players in MLB.

So, as you can see, the Dayn Perry hate around here is not b/c he is a stathead. It's b/c he is an idiot.

Re: No. 1, you're being awfully vague; I'd have to see the article. I do think that a lot of this stuff about "small ball" and the need to "manufacture runs" is nonsense, particularly when the Sox in the 2005 postseason scored the vast majority of their runs via the home run.

Re: No. 2, if he said that, he's an idiot;

Re: No. 3, I have not found any such article on the web. Please provide a link. I suspect it's an urban legend. The Eddings call was no different than the Mickey Owen dropped third strike in Game 4 of the '41 World Series.

Re: no. 4: Saying Ichiro's overrated hardly makes one an "idiot."

jabrch
01-01-2007, 11:54 PM
Re: No. 1, you're being awfully vague; I'd have to see the article. I do think that a lot of this stuff about "small ball" and the need to "manufacture runs" is nonsense, particularly when the Sox in the 2005 postseason scored the vast majority of their runs via the home run.

Then you don't get the game. If you can't manufacture runs, your chance of winning against top tier pitching goes down greatly.

Re: No. 2, if he said that, he's an idiot;

He did.

Re: No. 3, I have not found any such article on the web. Please provide a link. I suspect it's an urban legend. The Eddings call was no different than the Mickey Owen dropped third strike in Game 4 of the '41 World Series.

I have already linked to it. You conveniently chose to ignore that.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=59826

Now Fox has since yanked the article - but it was there.

Re: no. 4: Saying Ichiro's overrated hardly makes one an "idiot."

Suzuki is one of the best leadoff hitters in the game. (and this was said in 2005, when he was even better) He's a GG OF. He's one of the best baserunners in the game. Unless people were ranking him in the calibre of Aaron, Bonds and Ruth, which nobody was, calling him overrated does make Perry an idiot. He took a stupid arguement of his, the same one he uses against Podsednik, and tried to apply it to Ichiro, who is even better than Scott at everything he does. It's idiotic to continue to try and break down the establishment by making overexaggerations out of theory to the point where it is not any longer applicable in the real world.

ilsox7
01-02-2007, 12:21 AM
Re: No. 1, you're being awfully vague; I'd have to see the article. I do think that a lot of this stuff about "small ball" and the need to "manufacture runs" is nonsense, particularly when the Sox in the 2005 postseason scored the vast majority of their runs via the home run.

Re: No. 2, if he said that, he's an idiot;

Re: No. 3, I have not found any such article on the web. Please provide a link. I suspect it's an urban legend. The Eddings call was no different than the Mickey Owen dropped third strike in Game 4 of the '41 World Series.

Re: no. 4: Saying Ichiro's overrated hardly makes one an "idiot."

1. I was just demonstrating that Perry seems to have issues with facts. It was not a big deal, but he cited the Sox as possibly having two consecutive seasons with 240+ home runs when, in fact, it could not happen. Not a grave factual error, but an error none the less.

2. Link (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=61848&highlight=dayn+perry+frank+thomas+race): Again, the article no longer appears and does not seem to be archived. I found some/all of it at various places online, with the key quote being:

Despite his first-ballot Hall of Fame credentials and the fact that he's spent his entire career with one organization, Thomas isn't treated to the fawning media coverage bestowed upon, say, a Jeff Bagwell or a Craig Biggio. While Thomas certainly has his share of personality foibles, the Bagwell- and Biggio-led mutiny against erstwhile Houston manager Larry Dierker is largely forgotten. In contrast, Thomas' occasionally challenging personality often gets foreground treatment. Whether or not this is a matter of race seems a touch obvious.

3. Link (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=59826&highlight=dayn+perry+angels+series+legitimate): The actual article is no longer anywhere to be found on that website. That's a link from a WSI thread that quotes the article saying the ALCS has lost legitimacy b/c of the umpires. (and the legitimacy of this series has been gravely undermined by Eddings' incompetence.)

I am sure you won't necessarily like that there is no actual article still out there, but those of us who have been around here for a while saw/read them a year or more ago. So this is why you often see people completely dismiss Perry, as his **** has been torn to shreds in the past.

If you want to discuss Pods' value or Zito's signing, I say go for it. But citing Dayn Perry as an authority/reference won't get you very far around here. In fact, it won't get you very far around the baseball-internet world.

itsnotrequired
01-02-2007, 08:32 AM
Agreed. I did a quick Google search and found some more interesting Dayn Perry material. Here is a link (http://asher.baseballevolution.com/perrybonehead.html)that I thought was an interesting read, displaying Perry's idiocy. It seems like a fair article b/c the author flat-out says Perry's conclusion (no parenthetical needed here b/c I identified which conclusions I spoke of before a parenthetical was needed, not withstanding this one) may be right, but his analysis that led him to the conclusion is asinine.

Oh man, that is a classic. My favorite:


"For instance, imagine the kind of stats, say, Lance Berkman could put up if he never had to face a Pedro Martinez, a Dontrelle Willis, a Johan Santana, Carlos Zambrano or a Mariano Rivera and never had the likes of Andruw Jones, Torii Hunter or Mike Cameron turning doubles into fly outs."


Hmm. Imagine indeed. Except, the silliness of this argument kind of presents itself rather obviously, doesn't it? Lance Berkman debuted in 1999, the year after Pedro Martinez went to the American League. I am guessing that Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana, Torii Hunter, and Mariano Rivera have had zero impact on Berkman's career since they have all been in the American League the entire time that Berkman has been in the National. Furthermore, of Lance Berkman's 3289 career at-bats, only fifty (50) have come against Dontrelle Willis and Carlos Zambrano, so I am guessing that these guys haven't significantly affected Berkman's career either.

:rolling:

Craig Grebeck
01-02-2007, 01:30 PM
That's become a mantra for you folks. It's sounds nice - but it just isn't always the best thing. Guys who can do specific jobs are very important. There are such a thing as productive outs. And having certain things happen that a true leadoff hitter does can help a club out.



Not really - not if you ask him to do the things that Ozzie and KW asked Scott to do.



First, don't feel sorry for me. My team, has won 189 games in two years and won the WS last year with a traditional lineup construction. (Leadoff hitter who gets on and runs, #2 hitter who handles the bat, and can move runners ahead of him, great bats in the middle, then a defensive minded SS and CF in the back end who are not great bats, but can, from time to time, be productive) Second, you continue to describe these hitters as below average because they don't do what you want them to do. I think Scott is an excellent leadoff hitter because he does EXACTLY what his manager, his GM, and I want him to do. He gets on base at a decent clip, then disrupts the pitcher, catcher and defense when he gets on. I'm thrilled with that. I feel sorry for you that your team doesn't make you happy by playing the kind of baseball you like.

You go get Matt Stairs to lead off for your team. My team has Scott Podsednik and I'm ok with that unless a better leadoff hittter comes to town. And Iguchi is not that. He should be hitting further down the order, not up.
This team has won despite Pods, not because of him. We won 99 games in 2005 because of awesome pitching, and a pretty inconsistent, shoddy lineup.

We won 90 in 2006 due to Thome-Dye-Konerko-Crede.

itsnotrequired
01-02-2007, 02:39 PM
This team has won despite Pods, not because of him. We won 99 games in 2005 because of awesome pitching, and a pretty inconsistent, shoddy lineup.

:?:

Pods was essential to the 2005 team. I wouldn't say the Sox won because of him but to say they won "despite" him is foolishness. Pods had the most stolen bases, scored the second most runs, had the second highest OBP, etc. He was a crucial part of that team, especially when you consider the money saved by trading CLee allowed the Sox to pick up guys like Dye and Pierzynski.

jabrch
01-02-2007, 04:37 PM
This team has won despite Pods, not because of him. We won 99 games in 2005 because of awesome pitching, and a pretty inconsistent, shoddy lineup.

We won 90 in 2006 due to Thome-Dye-Konerko-Crede.

That's absolutely untrue. Every (figure of speech) player contributed to 2005. Pods hit .290/.351 with 50+ SBs. If you don't think he was a part of what won it for us, we are going to have to just agree to disagree. In fact - I think I'm done having the same discussion with you. All you seem to want to do is marginalize the value of what it is that you disagree with - and I no longer care enough to engage you in this discussion because you have taken this long past the point of it being a sensible baseball discussion. Saying they won despite Pods, in 2005, is completely assinine.

Scott hit .290/.351 with 50+ SBs. He was a key piece to that offense in 2005.

Domeshot17
01-02-2007, 07:56 PM
Does any of this change the fact Dayn Perry is complete moron?

This thread is making my head spin.

Hate on Pods and want Iguchi to lead off.

Pods as a 270ish hitter is a bigger hole then Uribe as a 245ish hitter

We want a better lead off hitter, but we don't want the best in the game, Ichiro, because he is very over rated.

In conclusion: **** Dayn Perry. He is an admitted Cub Fan, and he will hate on the Sox no matter what they do. He is a wannabe stathead who doesn't understand the way stats work or how baseball is played, who overanalyzes and will spend his entire life trying to get on ESPN, who won't want him, because, as states, he is a moron.

Chisox003
01-02-2007, 08:10 PM
This team has won despite Pods, not because of him. We won 99 games in 2005 because of awesome pitching, and a pretty inconsistent, shoddy lineup.

We won 90 in 2006 due to Thome-Dye-Konerko-Crede.
It's puff, puff, give people. I want what he has.

:smokin:

1951Campbell
01-02-2007, 09:47 PM
(superficial-at-best understanding of math) + (purposeful contrarianism) = (Dayn Perry)

QED.