iamshack

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 09:29 PM) http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...tesox-headlines We've found our solution to Cliff Politte. Honestly, I wouldn't mind IF he were to get his s*** together if we signed him to a minor league deal and had him join his compatriot Hideo down in Charlotte. I don't buy the notion that "the league figured him out." I think his problems are mental, and if he ever were to figure them out, I would love to have him again.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 08:32 PM) Oh, you clearly haven't been here long. You see, Carlos is one of the most selfish hitters in major league history, probably the most selfish in Sox history. Everytime up, he either homers or strikes out, which means he strikes out far more than Ron Kittle ever did. And he's the worst fielder in the game, ten times worse than Adam Dunn or Barry Bonds on one leg. Thus, if Detroit gets Carlos, they're guaranteed to lose, and lose big, the second half. This is all just fact, you can look it up if you want. Now, I know you're going to say, jackie, I did look it up and it's not true. That's because you looked it up at a reputable website like mlb.com or baseball-reference.com. You didn't look it up in your gut. My gut tells me that Carlos struck out more in one year than any other man did over a lifetime. Now, that's a fact. ... Although I will admit that Carlos really was not very good last year, overall, and anyone trading for him will have to think about his second half fade in 2005. You had me going there for a moment.... There is *some* evidence that shows Carlos slows down in the second half, but I don't want him in a position to hurt the White Sox. He is still too angry about being dealt. He is the anti-Magglio.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 07:51 PM) They are. I for one will be pretty happy if they land Carlos. Umm, Why? I understand he is no left handed bat, and they won't try to get him, but he is still better than Craig Monroe... I will only be happy if they land Carlos by dealing Zumaya and Verlander for him. Otherwise, why would we be happy if they landed CLee?

What's the last one referring to? It looks like it is Dimitri Young or something. Is he predicting something? Is he saying AJ is going to screw with Detroit? I like where it shows AJ getting traded for Nathan, Liriano, and Bonser. Hee. This is funny s***.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 06:50 PM) Well, it's more than just us speculating, it's been speculated on whitesox.com within the last week. But yeah, I can't figure out why he hasn't played there yet either. As much as I don't want to pick on Scott Merkin, he knows about as much as we do, if not less because he is given all the Soxganda. He is good for recaps and official news, but not much else.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 06:29 PM) I don't think the organization would want to showcase that they have a replacement Pods waiting in the wings. So instead they should continue to play him at a position which may be blocked to spare Pods' feelings? I certainly hope not. I know Kenny is a nice guy and all, but he certainly doesn't seem to let anyone's feelings get in the way of winning- ask Aaron about that.

QUOTE(Thunderin @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 06:05 PM) Tune into the Minor League Allstar game from 6pm to 9pm on ESPN2. Watch our stud, Josh Fields. (our future Left Fielder in the very near future ) Anyone know if this is really in the organization's plans, or if it is simply speculation and conventional wisdom? If they really were serious about moving him to left, why has he not yet played there?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) Reading a couple of Phillie boards, there were a couple of posts saying they believed Rowand's defense is overrated. He played too deep, took bad routes,and even breaks the wrong way once in a while. Seems plausible. Plausible? It's fricking obvious. His grit overshadows his shortcomings.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 02:45 PM) Hits still move runners along more than walks, hits drive in more runners if people are on base, etc. Just because he's a leadoff man doesn't mean his hits are totally useless. Which is why SLG% is factored into OPS. All I ask is that you adjust that SLG% to include successful stolen bases.

Well, since stolen bases don't really advance other runners, as base hits do, I suppose stolen bases should count as singles in terms of SLG %, even if there are times where Scottie might steal second and third after getting on base. If we add steals this way to his SLG% and adjust it (including subtracting cs from sb), his SLG percentage would be .446. Combine that with his OBP of .353, and he has a .799 OPS, or 1 point higher than Mark Teixiera. Just an interesting way to look at it, in my view. QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) If Eckstein was hitting .275, then his slugging would be much worse than .363. That's the obvious point that I was trying to make. No, not necessarily. If he was hitting .275 with 4 extra homers, his slugging would be almost identical to what it is now.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) This is mentioned (and done for a few players) in an article I linked to earlier in this thread. Its an interesting thought. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...eyes/index.html Anyone know how many times Scott has stolen third this season? QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 02:00 PM) SLG is influenced by batting average though, correct? Theoretically, the higher the average, the higher the slugging percentage. Your total bases are bound to go up if you're hitting at a higher average, correct? At least in the vast majority of cases, excluding all-or-nothing sluggers. Slugging % is influenced by BA only to the effect that hits are ultimately divided by at bats. But someone could have a .100 BA and have a higher Slugging % than someone with the same amount of AB's who is hitting .399. So SLG is influenced, but not really correlative.

The closest thing I can think to do is use his OPS except with an adjusted slugging percentage which accounts for what he would have hit after his sb's are accounted for. So basically, when he gets a single, but then steals second, you adjust his slugging % to account for a double rather than a single. I suppose you could then go back and account for his caught stealings by subtracting it from his slugging %. However, this still doesn't account for the fact that he didn't knock in whatever run he might have by getting a single and a stolen base rather than a double. Surprised though that some stat hasn't been created where stolen bases are somehow factored into an adjusted slugging percentage.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) Jeter is at .772 (.345 AVG, .427 OBP), which has to be tops for leadoff hitters. So yeah, that is your hall of famer, right there. I mean, people go on and on about how overrated he is, but the numbers don't lie. Unlike OPS, a 50 point difference would be enormous. So, while a .650 combined percentage (.290 AVG, .360 OBP) would be damn good, a .600 combined percentage (.275 AVG, .325 OBP) would kind of suck. Pods is currently at .629 (.276 AVG, .353 OBP), which is actually pretty good. Like I said, he's a designated leadoff hitter. This isn't a bad idea. But you can't add two stats together in which one of them has the other already incorporated within it. OBP already incorporates BA into it so that in essence, OBP is the number of walks plus hits the batter has. The reason OPS exists is to differentiate the hitters whose OBP may be very similar but whose basehits are very dissimilar. With your suggestion, we could have one hitter who walks at a tremendous rate but doesn't slug for s*** versus another who walks at a high rate but also does slug for a ton. Under your theory, we would have no clue how to differentiate them These players seem pretty similar, don't they? 1) Combined OBP and BA of .655 2) Combined OBP and BA of .666 Player "1" is Brian Giles- OPS of .756 Player "2" is David Ortiz- OPS of .997 I agree that OPS is not a great measure for a leadoff man, but either is what you have proposed. QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) That is the only way that his D could have improved, theoretically. It was a direct response to this statement: "I'll bet that his defense has improved markedly over the last 15 games". This ain't the NBA where you can start to hustle your ass off in a contract year & therefore fool people into thinking that you've become a competent defender. OF defense revolves around instincts & recognition. Those qualities don't just magically appear after your manager calls you out in the papers. Pods can't "try harder". He is what he is. When the issue is focus, you sure as hell can "try harder." It was a mental issue, not a physical one. Once again, the improvement I am talking about is relative- relative to his abilities, not Andruw Jones'. From my perspective, Scott was playing much worse than he played last year, and so I am happy that he "appears" to have gotten his s*** together over the last few weeks.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) I wish it was that simple, but unfortunately, OF defense does not revolve around hustle. A 30 year old player who has had tens of thousands of fly balls hit to him in his life doesn't just suddenly become a competent defensive outfielder at the age of 30. It must have been fly ball #150,000 that set him straight and provided him with the proper recognition & instincts to play his position at a competent level. I'm not getting the OPS discussion either (didn't even bother to read it, actually), as it is not relevant when discussing leadoff hitters. How about we combine OBP and batting average, with .700 being the elite level (.300 AVG, .400 OBP). Ichiro is at .750 (.343 AVG, .404 OBP). I don't know, maybe it's a stupid idea, but it's better than OPS in this particular case. Excuse me? At what point did I make the claim that OF defense revolved around hustle? What is the problem here? WHERE are there any claims in this thread that say Pods is the ideal OF defender or the best leadoff hitter who ever lived? No one is saying that. The point is that he is who we have now, and possibly next year (I'm not sure where you are growing your f***ing magical Gold Glove Best Leadoff Hitter Tree at, but please don't tell the anyone else about it!), and he isn't as terrible or worthless as some would portray him here. The point I made about looking up his defensive metrics in the past 15 games or so is that there supposedly was an "issue" about him taking his at-bats out onto the field. Supposedly his *focus* was somewhere else. Since Ozzie made those comments, and since Scott commented on them himself, I feel as though there has been an improvement, at least, I feel as though I have observed one. I suppose you are right now. I guess we should simply accept that some of our players are terrible, and instead of being encouraged at their efforts to improve, we should all just continue discussing how much they f***ing blow.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) Why yes, yes he did. Not exactly the type of character guy you're looking to add to your championship team. Hey, imagine what he would be willing to do to win though....

QUOTE(Sox1422 @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) Better defense? You are talking about Adruw Jones here. Get off of Andersons jock. Not so fast. I am assuming you saw the BP article on Brian's defense? And the corresponding Whitesox.com article? If not, here it is: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5200 http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...t=.jsp&c_id=cws He isn't as wrong as you might assume.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 10:46 AM) There was actually a analysis done of the Sox offense last year that found although they scored less runs in 2005 than in 2004, they scored ~ 5 runs more consistantly, i.e. there was less dispersion in the offense. It was a pretty hot topic at the time in came out, I believe The Hard Ball Times (Studes) did the research and article. Of course there is merit to being able to "manufacture" a run, but if you play for 1 run, you're more likely to score only 1 run. I don't like giving away outs, especially early in the game. The Sox dominated the playoffs in 2005 because of pitching and an offense that suddenly caught fire by hitting home runs and getting on base. Anyways, I'm sick of arguing this point. I've spent too much time on it already and I'm ready to move on. I suggest you do some google searches for sabermetrics though, because it seems you've got a few ideas about it that are misguided. CSF, I understand what you are saying, and I understand the research. We just don't agree on what leaps the saber research suggests we can or should make. Funny that you mention the anlysis done about the 05' offense. I am not sure when it was published, but I argued the same thing in December of last year with some Indians fans on their board. Here is the url if you would like to take a gander: http://mb3.scout.com/fclevelandindiansfrm1...tart=41&stop=60 BTW, here is some of what I found when I was looking this crap up back in December: The average deviation (runs scored) is 04' was 2.962. The average deviation in 05' was 2.269 That's a difference of like 25% Have a pleasant afternoon.

QUOTE(Greg Hibbard @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) Do you understand the following sentence: THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT WAS NOT THAT WE SHOULD GET AN OPS GUY. Podsednik's On Base Average, which is determined by HITS AND WALKS, not power numbers, flat out sucks for a leadoff hitter. We haven't even touched on the fact that lately, the guy has been popping up sac bunts.... The original argument has been addressed ad nauseum: Pods is in the middle of the pack in terms of OBP. That is not what I would say "sucks." That is what I would say is "mediocre" or "average." You want to see an OBP that sucks, you need look no further than the Shrine, where their leadoff hitter has an OBP of .321. Furthermore, when leading off an inning, Pods has an OBP of .368, which is solid. I made valid points and conclusions in regards to "the original argument," and in response to that, was told that OPS was the true measure of a hitter. I then responded to that. Don't get all spastic because the thread didn't stay exactly on the course you wished it would.

The Phillies are looking to ditch bloated contracts (Abreu and Burrell), not take more on (Vazquez). Any deal to get Rowand back (puke) would likely involve young pitching or Josh Fields.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jul 11, 2006 -> 11:35 PM) LOL, he hasn't proven a damn thing. He's done the typical, "I don't understand any of these new-fangled stats" garbage that everyone always does (ie, "Don't think you can just throw out your latest Bill James p Again, chitown got it right a long time ago, and it pretty much went ignored. a.) Podsednik isn't a very good ballplayer. but b.) We don't have anybody else to replace him. and, on the bright side c.) He's not a total blackhole, as he's still getting on-base at a decent clip (.353 OBP -- better than last year), and he tends to see a lot of pitches. Again, this doesn't have anything to do with beyond 2006, but I don't mind Pods finishing out the year in LF. The reason, BTW, that this team hasn't been "optimal" yet (it's been great, but I think it can be better, which is a testemant to KW), is obviously 'cause "the greatest five man rotation in history" (ugh, Hawk) hasn't lived up to the billing... I never claimed that I did not understand the "new stats." What I claimed is that the "new stats" are entirely inconclusive. Sure, OPS may be correlative to overall runs scored. However, that doesn't address several issues- it is entirely oversimplifying baseball by accepting the premise: "whichever offense scores the most runs overall is the best offense." Unfortunately, that simply is not true. There are no studies which show that a lineup laden with high-OPS hitters produce runs: 1)the most consistently; 2) most against elite pitching; 3) the most in "high stress" situations or environments (postseason); etc. Additionally, there is recent anecdotal evidence which shows that teams that rely simply on reaching base, play station-to-station baseball, and do not believe in "manufacturing runs" do not succeed in postseason baseball. The 04' Red Sox are probably the one example of one that has. In regards to Podsednik, as has been mentioned, no one is comparing him to Rickey Henderson. But there is no conclusive proof you can offer that shows that stacking your team with all OPS guys instead of any speed guys is optimal. Finally, for the people with access to updated advanced defensive metrics, could someone please look up Scottie's performance over the last 15 games or so (about the time Ozzie called him out about his defense). I would be willing to bet that his defense has improved markedly since about that time.

QUOTE(Greg Hibbard @ Jul 11, 2006 -> 11:20 PM) Iamshack, the point is that Podsednik isn't just bad at OPS, he's bad at almost everything, and the point of this thread was not to point out that he's JUST bad at OPS. He's terrible at OPS, RBI, HR, and even taking walks (an important stat for a leadoff hitter, wouldn't you agree) in comparison with OTHER LEADOFF hitters, which is even more pathetic. We're talking about other "set the table" guys who also happen to do things like stealing bases and scoring runs ALMOST as well as Pods, but are about 5-10 notches ahead of him in defense and in other offensive categories. Moreover, the things Podsednik DOES do well either aren't necessarily directly attributable to him (in the case of runs, which requires relying on the hitting of another player, as opposed to homers, rbis, and batting average which all are determined solely by the batter), or they aren't necessarily impactful on the game itself (in the case of steals, which AGAIN, unlike RBIs and HR don't impact the scoreboard immediately, if at all) Simply put, my point is that the s*** he does well doesn't matter that much, whereas the s*** he doesn't do well matters a whole lot more. My point is that whatever s*** he does or doesn't do isn't that much of a problem since the offense is leading the league in runs scored. I am tired of arguing whether he is a good leadoff man or not since we can not even come to agreement on what a good leadoff man does. However, I do know this. Our starting pitching sucks right now. I don't give a flying f*** what Pods or BA do offensively as long as we score runs, they catch the damned ball, and our starters begin to pitch well.

Crawford and Sizemore are unattainable unless you want to blow up the team for the sake of adding .100 points of OPS. Scott does fine for what he is asked to do and what the team needs. He will not be signed to a lucrative contract by the White Sox.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jul 11, 2006 -> 10:33 PM) I think the word you are looking for is "correlate". Dude, I'm trying hard to restrain myself, but your posts are rediculous. We can "quantify" how runs are scored. They are mostly scored when guys get on base and hit 3 run homers, not when singles hitters are stealing the occasional base and 25% of the time getting thrown out and making an out in the process. Don't ask Billy Beane or Bill James, ask Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas, or every other eagle-eyed slugger who's ever been celebrated because they produce runs by hitting the s*** out of the baseball and getting on base (not making outs) at an insane rate. Stolen Bases are a BIT part in run production, as in not very important. That has been proven not with statistics, but with EMPIRICAL evidence. There is a very strong correlation between runs scored, OBP, and HR's, much more so than with SB's. Go sort through a half century of box scores, calculate every team's OPS, and then see how many runs they scored. Than calculate how many SB's they had, then see how many runs the scored. Plot the data with stolen bases and OPS as the independent variable and runs as the dependent. Now look at the chart and see that runs scored is roughly linearly proportional to OPS but not to stolen bases. (If you don't get this part, go research basic stats, it won't take long I promise, like 30 min on wiki) hit the regression button on your graphing calculator if you want to get all pencil headed about it. "Dude," simply because I am new here does not mean I am stupid. If you read my posts you will see that I have not disputed that the evidence shows that OPS "correlates" (my deepest apologies for using "coincides" (my attention was partially diverted by the all star game)) with run production. What the evidence does not show is whether teams with the highest OPS tend to score runs the most consistently, whether they are more prone to streaks, whether run production which does not rely on "manufacturing" through productive outs can sustain itself against optimal pitching or in high-stress environments, etc. Simply because you can tally up some numbers and come up with the highest number does not equate to optimal success in winning games. As you might say, that would be "rediculous." Don't think you can just throw out your latest Bill James p There is a hell of a lot more to this game than OPS and traditional offensive positions and pythagorean records. As a WS fan, you should know that. Don't insult my intelligence or that of others with your patronizing, condescending posts.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jul 11, 2006 -> 09:58 PM) I think we should be clear there are two different aruments here: 1) Pods' abilities 2) His value to the team and his future with the Sox. I think it would help if people are clear on what they are arguing. Of course they are related, but I think an argument can be made that PODS isn't a very good player, but he's valuable as the best leadoff hitter we currently have, regardless of his defensive worth. The Sox can win with PODS on this team despite his suckitude. His defense is bad, but LF defense is only worth so much. The players capable of replacing him in left are not better options. Mackowiak is more usefull in an utility role, Ozuna as well. Gload has no role on the team. Widge blows. PODS needs to continue his trend of getting OB and hitting with a bit of pop. He had an otherworldy (read: fluke) first half last year and than went back to mostly crap in the 2nd, although injuries could have played a role. But his career numbers suggest he just isn't that good of a hitter: Career OPS+ of 92 with a career OBP of .345. His career slugging is (puke) .385. Hell, this year, PODS is beating his career OPS by a full 8 points and it's a "lofty" .744. Remember, this is for a LF! Pods is 7th out of 10 among qualified LF in the AL in OPS. In MLB, he is 16th out of 20. ISO power, (Slg-BA) Pods is 2nd to last, only beating...the glorious Matt Murton. Point is, PODS is a terrible LF all around. He can't field a very easy position (relatively), and he can't hit either. He's a below average league hitter in the 2nd best offensive position in baseball. Corner OF is the place for sluggers, not slap hitters. He's the best option this year, next year, we need an upgrade in LF. You can argue that "offensive position" until you are blue in the face but that doesn't change the fact that our starting rotation makes a combined $50 million or so. We cannot afford to have power-hitting all-stars at every position. And don't compare Podsednik to other left fielders, compare him to other leadoff men. On a lesser team, he could arguably play center field (as he did in Milwaukee) and that would blow your whole "offensive position" bs out of the water. Would that make him a better hitter or player since he might compare better to centerfielders as opposed to leftfielders? QUOTE(SABR Sox @ Jul 11, 2006 -> 10:10 PM) Haha. This forum obviosuly isn't for me. I'll take my business elsewhere. Not at all dude. Don't let me chase you away. I just don't believe that since you can't quanitfy things, ergo they do not exist. I see too much with my own eyes to take your word for it. Your opinions and theories and stats-based approach are not invalid; but why can't you provide some more evidence that they actually coincide with winning games instead of simply overall run production? Once again, ask the Indians if it is that simple.

Umm, what is that big red thing?