Octavio Dotel signs with Sox

[The Ginger Kid]

It all came together in '05, especially:

 

Neil Cotts, 1.94 ERA sandwiched between years of 5.65 and 5.17 ERA's.

Cliff Politte, 2.00 ERA sandwiched between years of 4.38 and 8.70 ERA's (granted, hurt for that last one).

[Rowand44]

I find the great exaggeraters amusing. People who say that any one of those things won the championship are selectively ignoring much of the picture. Pitching was number 1, no doubt. But defense, Pods' presence at the top, lots of home runs, good situational hitting when the team needed it, some luck, some small ball, and even a little bit of that intangible grindiness all came into play. No way that team wins the title without ALL those things.

This is so freakin true. Good stuff.

[YASNY]

The last posts by Balta and NSS72 are right on point. Excellent posts.

[Y2HH]

You know what, you guys can bring up all those points, and while I'll acknowledge the need for OBP, you simply aren't going to be able to convince me that Podsednik's work on the basepaths wasn't a very important ingredient in the 2005 team. Yes, the pitching was the biggest part, no one doubts that. Yes, pitchers throw fastballs anyway. Yes, the guy only leads off once a game. Yes, Iguchi grounded out to 2nd to get Pods over to 3rd plenty of times. Yes, he only scored 80 runs (despite missing a month). But there was a reason why we made sure he got in the all star game. Because whether the stats say it or not, he was a huge part in a lot of those wins in the first half. Just watching the games, you could see it. You could see how big a difference he made on the basepaths, you could see how big a difference it made when he got hurt and was terrible/on the DL for 1.5 months. That's what my eyes told me. I think that's what the 10th in the 1st half and 18th in the 2nd half in runs scored tells me. Whether the stats say it or not, for the 2005 team, having that guy at the front of our lineup who stole 20 some bases in a row was damn important.

 

Well said and agreed. It was also a big reason for starting that season with a lead (scoring first) in 50-something odd games, IIRC.

[almagest]

I don't disagree that Podsednik was a big part of the White Sox having such a great first half, but he had an OBP of .369. You have to get on first to steal second. And as Podsednik later showed, with his mediocre performance and injury problems, it can be tough to sustain a high OBP and a high SB rate. I'd rather have a leadoff hitter who gets on base, and hits lots of doubles, instead of hoping we can find a speedy leadoff guy with a 80% SB success rate. How many teams have one of those, anyways?

[ptatc]

I agree its very overrated. The leadoff hitter is only guaranteed to leadoff once, but he will bat at least as much as anyone in the lineup. Its more important to get a guy who can get on base, and let the 2,3, 4 hitter do their jobs. Even when Pods was supposedly spectacular, didn't Iguchi have to give himself up a lot? You're taking pitches ,getting behind in the count so the guy can get to second.

 

I still disagree. While the "speedster" only leads off once, he creates a distraction for the pitcher whenever he is on base. That's why agree they need to get on base at a decent clip but the threat to steal drives pitchers crazy. Especially in today's game with so many people following the James rule where spped doesn't matter, the ones who can create a distraction are even more effective.

 

Even having the player caught stealing wore the pitcher down more by having him throwing over to first (which wears a pitcher out more with the twisting motion). This will effect the overall game that doesn't sho up in the number of runs scored, OBP and whatever else you want to analyze. In the end getting the pitcher out of the game sooner may be more effective.

 

OBP from the leadoff spot is obviously important because he will have on average more plate appearances than anyone else, but how much of a difference do you need to negate the effect of the speed is a real conundrum. It is also one that polarizes people, they either think it helps or don't. I for one believe it has a great impact on the game.

 

The scenario you state above should only happen early in games to get a lead or toward the end of close games when one run truly matters.

[Dick Allen]

Pods had more steals in 2004 with the Brewers and a much better PCT. He also had a much better offensive year in 2003. Both years the Brewers sucked. He scored 80 runs in 2005. There probably was over 100 players that scored more runs than him. The argument would be runs aren't his fault, its the guys knocking him in. Perhaps true, but if that's the problem, how can the argument be made how he was inside the head of pitchers? The White Sox team ERA was 3.61. With as bad as Pods was the last 2 seasons, I would venture to guess if the White Sox team ERA was 3.61 in 2006 or 2007, at least 1 and perhaps 2 more playoff appearances would have been in order. I will never be convinced Pods was all that valuable, nor a key to a WS. His OBP in the WS was .286, that's lower than it was in 2007, and the Sox still swept. I think his steals would have been hard to replace, but it wouldn't have been too hard to find a more productive player, ie one that scored and drove in more runs, which really is more important than your steal totals. Putting things in perspective, if you add runs and rbi and subtract homers, Pods accounted for 105 runs in 2005. Neifi Perez accounted for 104, and Neifi's OPS was only .019 lower.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Dick Allen

[Heads22]

80-44 w/Pods in 2005

19-19 without.

 

I got as fed up with Pods as everyone the last couple of years, but it's borderline retarded to say that he didn't have a big effect on that 2005 team.

[almagest]

OBP from the leadoff spot is obviously important because he will have on average more plate appearances than anyone else, but how much of a difference do you need to negate the effect of the speed is a real conundrum. It is also one that polarizes people, they either think it helps or don't. I for one believe it has a great impact on the game.

 

Speed is only a significant threat if the base stealer has a success rate near or over 75%. Otherwise the player's speed has little effect.

 

Personally, I feel speed has the greatest effect in being able to go from first to third or second to home on a single. Especially if the team or the hitters coming to bat struggle with RiSP.

[NorthSideSox72]

Speed is only a significant threat if the base stealer has a success rate near or over 75%. Otherwise the player's speed has little effect.

 

Personally, I feel speed has the greatest effect in being able to go from first to third or second to home on a single. Especially if the team or the hitters coming to bat struggle with RiSP.

Your second graf conflicts with the first. Speed is important, and steal rate isn't necessarily a good indicator of that value. It only indicates the value of their ability to steal bases, which is not solely dependant on speed. Some players are fast on the paths but not great base-stealers. Rob Mackowiak was a great example of that - didn't steal much or all that successfully, but he was pretty darn quick on the paths.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

80-44 w/Pods in 2005

19-19 without.

 

I got as fed up with Pods as everyone the last couple of years, but it's borderline retarded to say that he didn't have a big effect on that 2005 team.

I think it would be a little more than borderline retarded to think the 2005 White Sox would have been about .500 without Pods.

[Heads22]

I think it would be a little more than borderline retarded to think the 2005 White Sox would have been about .500 without Pods.

 

They would have been appreciably worse, which could have been enough to miss the playoffs.

[Dick Allen]

They would have been appreciably worse, which could have been enough to miss the playoffs.

I disagree. He also happened to be hurt at about the same time the pitching went into the crapper for a bit. I don't think it had much to do with his absence.

[CWSGuy406]

I disagree. He also happened to be hurt at about the same time the pitching went into the crapper for a bit. I don't think it had much to do with his absence.

 

Pods' career with the White Sox was basically what should've been expected -- one half-year of being pretty decent (fluke?) and two-and-a-half years of being wretched.

 

That doesn't make the trade a bad one, mind you, but the money cleared (and subsequentally used to fill other holes) is a much better reason why that trade was a good one.

 

Also... it's never brought up that when Podsednik was hurt, the players filling in were worse than wretched in Ozuna (OPS+ of 70) and Timo (OPS+ of... boy this hurts to type... 48 -- bless that man for using up all 48 of those points -- if that's even possible -- in every clutch situation). So even Podsednik's below-average OPS+ of 86 was a wonderful improvement.

 

And FWIW... I also remember in the second half of 2005 -- WITH MY VERY OWN EYES!!!!! -- that Podsednik absolutely killed the Sox already poor offense by trying to steal the few times he did get on-base (.326 OBP in the 2nd half, thanks Scott). I can vividly remember people like fathom and myself going apes*** over Pods trying to steal on one leg (insert comment about that being like any other gamethread).

Edited January 29, 2008 by CWSGuy406

[longshot7]

I'd still take Lee over Pods any day, even in hindsight.

[almagest]

Your second graf conflicts with the first. Speed is important, and steal rate isn't necessarily a good indicator of that value. It only indicates the value of their ability to steal bases, which is not solely dependant on speed. Some players are fast on the paths but not great base-stealers. Rob Mackowiak was a great example of that - didn't steal much or all that successfully, but he was pretty darn quick on the paths.

 

Mackowiak isn't fast, but is a good base runner. He gets good jumps, makes wise decisions, etc. Most good base runners aren't stolen base threats, per se. They also need to be fast.

[NorthSideSox72]

Mackowiak isn't fast, but is a good base runner. He gets good jumps, makes wise decisions, etc. Most good base runners aren't stolen base threats, per se. They also need to be fast.

I don't know their 40 splits, but, I'd say Mack is pretty damn fast. As far as speed around the bases, I think the only guys on the Sox the last few years who are/were faster would be Owens and Pods-when-healthy. Possibly Ozuna too, but I haven't seen him enough lately to say for sure.

 

[ptatc]

Speed is only a significant threat if the base stealer has a success rate near or over 75%. Otherwise the player's speed has little effect.

 

Personally, I feel speed has the greatest effect in being able to go from first to third or second to home on a single. Especially if the team or the hitters coming to bat struggle with RiSP.

 

Thank You Bill James for the rhetoric about base stealing is only effective with a 75% success rate. I won't argue the numbers for base stealing. My point is that speed or even the threat of speed has a much greater effect on the game than the numbers can analyze. Look at the number of stressful pitches the starter threw or the number of pickoff attempts. All of these have a greater impact on the pitcher than just the OBP guy.

[qwerty]

I still disagree. While the "speedster" only leads off once, he creates a distraction for the pitcher whenever he is on base. That's why agree they need to get on base at a decent clip but the threat to steal drives pitchers crazy. Especially in today's game with so many people following the James rule where spped doesn't matter, the ones who can create a distraction are even more effective.

 

Even having the player caught stealing wore the pitcher down more by having him throwing over to first (which wears a pitcher out more with the twisting motion). This will effect the overall game that doesn't sho up in the number of runs scored, OBP and whatever else you want to analyze. In the end getting the pitcher out of the game sooner may be more effective.

 

OBP from the leadoff spot is obviously important because he will have on average more plate appearances than anyone else, but how much of a difference do you need to negate the effect of the speed is a real conundrum. It is also one that polarizes people, they either think it helps or don't. I for one believe it has a great impact on the game.

 

The scenario you state above should only happen early in games to get a lead or toward the end of close games when one run truly matters.

 

The theory that a player like podsednik causes the pitcher a distraction and will just make him throw continuous meatballs is a fallacy. I have heard (and seen with my very own eyes) many of times that the ''distraction'' a ''speedster'' makes throws off many of hitters. There is a good chance they will get down in the count due to them worrying about that ''speedster'' getting over, get thrown off by when a pitch is actually coming (some pitchers with throw over 3-4 times in a row). Basically it is a two way street and no one can definitively say a base stealing threat will always end up benifitting the teams ''getting in the head factor/distraction'' it is just unrealistic.

[almagest]

Thank You Bill James for the rhetoric about base stealing is only effective with a 75% success rate. I won't argue the numbers for base stealing. My point is that speed or even the threat of speed has a much greater effect on the game than the numbers can analyze. Look at the number of stressful pitches the starter threw or the number of pickoff attempts. All of these have a greater impact on the pitcher than just the OBP guy.

 

Ok, so what are qualified as stressful pitches? And where's the evidence that shows that a high number of said stressful pitches leads to a higher ERA, WHIP, more pitches thrown, or rate of injury? I've never seen any.

 

I'll agree that "statheads" tend to blindly throw stats around without considering any other factors, but you can't just say "this works this way" without any sort of evidence to back it up.

[rockren]

Thank You Bill James for the rhetoric about base stealing is only effective with a 75% success rate. I won't argue the numbers for base stealing. My point is that speed or even the threat of speed has a much greater effect on the game than the numbers can analyze. Look at the number of stressful pitches the starter threw or the number of pickoff attempts. All of these have a greater impact on the pitcher than just the OBP guy.

 

This is well said, but don't expect any other people on this board to agree with this, though.

 

KW certianly agrees with you on this point. He wouldn't fool around with Jerry Owens in CF if he didn't.

[CWSGuy406]

Thank You Bill James for the rhetoric about base stealing is only effective with a 75% success rate. I won't argue the numbers for base stealing. My point is that speed or even the threat of speed has a much greater effect on the game than the numbers can analyze. Look at the number of stressful pitches the starter threw or the number of pickoff attempts. All of these have a greater impact on the pitcher than just the OBP guy.

 

I'm certainly not going to say that a player with a .330 OBP but who can steal 50 bases is more valuable than any number of .330 OBP/.450 SLG types that you can find every offseason. You see... I prefer the player that doesn't have to steal second base -- I prefer the player that's already on second base because he hit a double and doesn't have to worry about stealing second. That puts stress on the pitcher too -- if he gives up a single, he gives up a run.

 

And I'm no way against a player being fast, by the way -- it's a great tool to have. But the people that still think these .270/.330/.350 (but with SPEED!) LFers (or CFers when there's a much better option available -- see Owens, Jerry versus Quentin, Carlos) are in any way good gives me a nice chuckle.

[YASNY]

You guys can throw all the stats around that you want to. But, I agree with ptatc that Pods had a huge impact on the Sox success in the first half of '05. Pods took a lot of pitches, and not just in his first at bat but in just about all of them. He was a force on the bathpaths, and he did get into the pitchers' heads. The Sox built a big lead that cushioned the second half problems the team had and Pods first half was a very important part of that. Stats are fine, but I know what I saw with my own eyes. Without Pods first half, we don't even make the playoffs.

[almagest]

You guys can throw all the stats around that you want to. But, I agree with ptatc that Pods had a huge impact on the Sox success in the first half of '05. Pods took a lot of pitches, and not just in his first at bat but in just about all of them. He was a force on the bathpaths, and he did get into the pitchers' heads. The Sox built a big lead that cushioned the second half problems the team had and Pods first half was a very important part of that. Stats are fine, but I know what I saw with my own eyes. Without Pods first half, we don't even make the playoffs.

 

Podsednik averaged 3.89 pitches per plate appearance in 2005. That didn't crack the top 25 in baseball that year -- number 25 was Todd Helton, at 4.03, 0.14 points higher than Podsednik. Also, if you look at the list, you'll find some very decidedly not-good baseball players on the list, who were on some very decidedly not-good teams, so I'm not sure how important or relevant this stat is, overall.

 

Also, I don't understand the unwavering Pods devotion for 2005. Was he valuable? Yes. Did he make or break this team? No. The pitching was far, far, far more important. I think relying on Pods (and later, Erstad) for these phantom, intangible concepts of "grindiness" and "getting in pitchers' heads" caused us a lot of problems in '06 and '07, as well.

Edited January 30, 2008 by almagest

[YASNY]

Podsednik averaged 3.89 pitches per plate appearance in 2005. That didn't crack the top 25 in baseball that year -- number 25 was Todd Helton, at 4.03, 0.14 points higher than Podsednik. Also, if you look at the list, you'll find some very decidedly not-good baseball players on the list, who were on some very decidedly not-good teams, so I'm not sure how important or relevant this stat is, overall.

 

Also, I don't understand the unwavering Pods devotion for 2005. Was he valuable? Yes. Did he make or break this team? No. The pitching was far, far, far more important. I think relying on Pods (and later, Erstad) for these phantom, intangible concepts of "grindiness" and "getting in pitchers' heads" caused us a lot of problems in '06 and '07, as well.

 

Whatever. I still stand by my statement that without Pods first half, the Sox miss the playoffs.