I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)

[Greg Hibbard]

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.

 

Fair enough, but that doesn't excuse the fact that we can obviously upgrade at least 3 aspects of the defiencies internally by platooning podsednik with ozuna. The defense is probably a wash, Ozuna is clearly a better bunter, he's faster, and he's got better overall offensive numbers.

 

Starting pitching is a whole 'nother thread anyway.

[Jordan4life_2007]

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.

 

How much longer are you and the rest of the Pods haters gonna continue to argue something that nobody is disputing? There hasn't been one person in this thread that's claimed Pods is great. There hasn't been a single person in this thread that said they wouldn't welcome an upgrade if possible. But to say that he's worthless, which is just incredibly stupid, is what guys like iamshack is disputing. You can take all your stats and slobber all over them if you want. Anybody could see that Pods is a valuable asset to this particular team. Nobody cares how he compares to Sizemore or Damon. That's a moot point. It's what he does for THIS team that matters.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Jordan4life_2006

[DBAHO]

Fair enough, but that doesn't excuse the fact that we can obviously upgrade at least 3 aspects of the defiencies internally by platooning podsednik with ozuna. The defense is probably a wash, Ozuna is clearly a better bunter, he's faster, and he's got better overall offensive numbers.

 

Starting pitching is a whole 'nother thread anyway.

I don't expect Ozuna's high numbers to continue in the 2nd half of this season, but that's JMHO.

[CWSGuy406]

iamshack is cleanin' house in this thread.

 

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...

[Jordan4life_2007]

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...

 

Arguing something is not the same as ignoring it. Again, nobody has claimed Pods to be great. I don't see the point of this entire thread to be honest. Iamshack has made some damn good points on what makes Pods a valuable asset to this particular team. You don't need stats for that. And let's be honest here, if not for Pods' defense, there would really be nothing to b**** about. His numbers are up across the board from a year ago.

[chitownsportsfan]

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...

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Good post greg, I wish I could frame my answers so succinctly.

[SoxAce]

How much longer are you and the rest of the Pods haters gonna continue to argue something that nobody is disputing? There hasn't been one person in this thread that's claimed Pods is great. There hasn't been a single person in this thread that said they wouldn't welcome an upgrade if possible. But to say that he's worthless, which is just incredibly stupid, is what guys like iamshack is disputing. You can take all your stats and jizz all over them if you want. Anybody could see that Pods is a valuable asset to this particular team. Nobody cares how he compares to Sizemore or Damon. That's a moot point. It's what he does for THIS team that matters.

 

Excellent Post.

[T R U]

If Anderson haters need to let up because of his ".333" july average I think the Pods haters need to let up with the current hot streak that hes been on..

 

Hes been hitting well as of late despite the sub-par defense.. can we cut the guy a little break yet?

[Jordan4life_2007]

I don't expect Ozuna's high numbers to continue in the 2nd half of this season, but that's JMHO.

 

God forbid Ozuna comes back to earth (he will). Then will be talking about how Ozuna was a fluke and must be shipped out ASAP.

[Damen]

And let's be honest here, if not for Pods' defense, there would really be nothing to b**** about. His numbers are up across the board from a year ago.

 

Very true. His two slumps this year would have drawn much less attention if he were at least playing his position as competently as last year. By the way, does anyone disagree with this statement...

 

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.

[Capn12]

I'm content with Pods here the rest of the year...I don't want KW to go out and overpay for a leadoff-type LFer for this season...lets wait till the offseason, see what our options are via FA or trade, and go from there.

 

Pods irritates the piss outta me as much as, if not more than everyone else, but he is by far not the biggest problem right now on this team.

 

Give me a starting rotation who pitches even remotely close to their potential(and their price), then give me a situational righty who wont implode in close games, and hey I'm happy.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Very true. His two slumps this year would have drawn much less attention if he were at least playing his position as competently as last year. By the way, does anyone disagree with this statement...

 

Well, Pods being a very good player or not is strictly opinion. I think he's a solid player that can be very good when he gets hot, and can be very bad when he's cold. I do conceed that they're are a bunch of guys that I'd rather have over him. But s***, you could say that about anybody from the '05 team.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Jordan4life_2006

[qwerty]

Anyone remember when only a few people saw how truly pathetic podsednik is... was around the time we acquired him up until the all star game?

Edited July 12, 2006 by qwerty

[thomsonmi]

Pods needs to step it up defensively. He's having a bad year there. Everything else in this thread is idiocy. Acquiring Pods changed the dynamic of this team tremendously for the better.

 

You can't find the impact by looking at Pods stats. You find the impact in watching the impact he has on pitchers once he gets on base. He changes how pitchers approach everyone who bats when he is on base.

 

Threads like this are why I rarely comment on this site anymore. We have the best damn baseball team in over the last two years thanks in major part to the acquisition of Pods. Is that really that hard for ya'll to understand? Or is it that some of you are too young to remember 2004?

 

I'm frankly astounded.

 

One of you stat guys want to pull up our record with Pods starting and with out Pods the last two years. Just out of curiousity.

 

Rowand44 gets it. Anyone who watched the White Sox in August/September last year does not need to see this stat to know the impact Pods had on our team last year.

Edited July 12, 2006 by thomsonmi

[YASNY]

This was really a very good thread. Good cases made on both sides of the issue. I'm like most, I think. I think Pods has value to this team. He fills his role adequately. However, I think he'll be elsewhere in '07.

[iamshack]

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.

Edited July 12, 2006 by iamshack

[Greg Hibbard]

.

 

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.

 

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....

[iamshack]

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.

[Felix]

We haven't even touched on the fact that lately, the guy has been popping up sac bunts....

Lately, the guy is also hitting .349/.378/.419. What's your point?

[chitownsportsfan]

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.

 

 

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.

[Balta1701]

There is one other statistic that I think is worth talking about in this thread that I think Podsednik had something to do with - the total variance of our runs scored.

 

As others have pointed out, OPS seems to correlate very well with total runs scored. However, runs scored does not always correlate well with wins, as teams like say, the 2004 White Sox proved beyond a doubt. Why? Well because there's other key parts, such as pitching and defense.

 

Now, the interesting thing I want to point out about Podsednik in our lineup was something I noted in the middle of last year. In 2004, the Sox scored a ton of runs, but they also had a very high variance in runs scored. They'd average about 6 runs a game, but they'd do that by scoring 12 runs one day and being shut out the next.

 

When the Sox tried "Ozzie-ball" more in 05, there was a remarkable decline in the variance of runs scored per game. I don't have the most up-to-date numbers in front of me right now (I can work on them sometime today if people really want) but the fact was that while we scored significantly fewer runs per game, the variance from one game to another went down as well. So we averaged like 5 runs per game, but it was more like we'd score 6 one game, 4 the next game, 2 one day, then 8 the next. We almost always gave our pitchers something to work with. We didn't have the 20 run outputs in 05, but we didn't have as many 0's either.

 

We've seen something of that effect this year too...with it taking until what was it, June before our team was shut out the first time? I would argue that there's not really good ways of quantifying this behavior beyond looking at the St. Dev./variance in runs scored, but I think Podsednik is a key part of it, in that his ability to steal bases, get into scoring position on his own, and occasionally make things easier for the people behind him is a key part in our being able to get a few runs off of good pitching to give our pitching staff a chance to be better than our opposition.

[chitownsportsfan]

Yep, great minds think alike. We must have been posting at the same time Balta.

[Balta1701]

Yep, great minds think alike. We must have been posting at the same time Balta.

I'd have beaten you by 20 minutes but I had to stop 1/2 way through writing to go take a sample out of a furnace

[iamshack]

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.

Edited July 12, 2006 by iamshack

[chitownsportsfan]

I'd have beaten you by 20 minutes but I had to stop 1/2 way through writing to go take a sample out of a furnace

 

I wouldn't even begin to know what that means. I can take a sample bite out of an apple, a furnace though?