scott podsednik

[Chocolate Milk]

So let's say you can take 10 points off the slugging increase for those circumstances-you're still looking at a 20 point drop in OBP for a 70 point increase in slugging.

 

What was this arbitrary adjustment based on?

 

It's based on adding a base to slugging every time Pierre steals a base and taking away a hit from his OBP every time he gets caught.

 

We've already discussed how that doesn't work because of the fact that a traditional double drives in runs. You adjusted by an arbitrary 10 slugging points to make up for this. I don't see how you got that from anywhere besides just making it up.

 

This also doesn't take into account that OBP is more important to offensive production than SLG.

[CubColtPacer]

So let's say you can take 10 points off the slugging increase for those circumstances-you're still looking at a 20 point drop in OBP for a 70 point increase in slugging.

 

What was this arbitrary adjustment based on?

 

It's based on adding a base to slugging every time Pierre steals a base and taking away a hit from his OBP every time he gets caught.

 

We've already discussed how that doesn't work because of the fact that a traditional double drives in runs. You adjusted by an arbitrary 10 slugging points to make up for this. I don't see how you got that from anywhere besides just making it up.

 

This also doesn't take into account that OBP is more important to offensive production than SLG.

 

OBP is more important-but important enough to take the 20 points in OBP rather than the 70-80 in slugging? Yes, my number is a bit arbitrary, but think about it. The only situation where a double and a single and a sb are different is one of the following situations:

 

1. Runner on 2nd-Pierre singles, and the runner stays at 3rd, and Pierre steals 2nd.

2. Runner on 1st-Pierre Singles, Runner goes to 3rd, Pierre steals 2nd.

3. Runner on 1st-Pierre singles, Runner goes to 2nd, double steal.

 

That's it-that's the only 3 situations where it is different. How many times do you think any of those situations have actually happened this season? I have seen very few of these occasions, so the formula still gives a rough indication of his actual production.

 

 

Edit: By the way, I meant that taking the 10 points off was the part where I estimated the number of times those situations have actually happened to make it different. I calculated the original number of actually adding 80 points to his slugging.

Second Edit: I can confirm now that 29 of Pierre's sb's are with only him on. So at least for those 29 sb's, it was the same as a double-and I know at least 3 or 4 more are double steals where Pierre stole 3rd and a player stole 2nd behind him-so there are only a handful of steals at most where a double would have been different than a single+sb.

[Chocolate Milk]

t takes three stolen bases to equal one walk of shame back to the dugout. If you're stealing at less than a 75% success rate, you're better off never going at all.

 

A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation--now with one out and no one on base--drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.

 

Juan Peirre is stealing bases at a 76% clip. He is treading water. Your arbitrary increases seem to be much higher than what actually is occuring.

 

http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2607

[CubColtPacer]

t takes three stolen bases to equal one walk of shame back to the dugout. If you're stealing at less than a 75% success rate, you're better off never going at all.

 

A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation--now with one out and no one on base--drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.

 

Juan Peirre is stealing bases at a 76% clip. He is treading water. Your arbitrary increases seem to be much higher than what actually is occuring.

 

http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2607

 

3 things to that

 

1) If the loss is only 2.3 times the gain, then it wouldn't take 3 sb's for every caught stealing, just 2.3 steals for every caught stealing-that makes him more productive.

2)Pierre doesn't always steal bases or get caught with nobody out-what are the numbers with 1 out or 2 outs and nobody on?

3)The 80 point increase in slugging was not arbitrary-if all 38 of his sb's were with nobody on or as Pierre being the lead runner, that's what his extra bases would increase his slugging this year. Yes, not all 38 of those were in that situation-but at least 29 of them were.

[CubColtPacer]

We actually satisfy two other conditions of that article when it is prudent to steal bases. One is that the player in the 2 spot has been a double play threat most of the season. Second, our lack of power means that for a large part of the season, barely any of our hitters could get somebody home from first base-which makes the stolen base more valuable. So we are prime candidates for 2 of the 3 reasons why a team should run.

[Chocolate Milk]

t takes three stolen bases to equal one walk of shame back to the dugout. If you're stealing at less than a 75% success rate, you're better off never going at all.

 

A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation--now with one out and no one on base--drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.

 

Juan Peirre is stealing bases at a 76% clip. He is treading water. Your arbitrary increases seem to be much higher than what actually is occuring.

 

http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2607

 

3 things to that

 

1) If the loss is only 2.3 times the gain, then it wouldn't take 3 sb's for every caught stealing, just 2.3 steals for every caught stealing-that makes him more productive.

2)Pierre doesn't always steal bases or get caught with nobody out-what are the numbers with 1 out or 2 outs and nobody on?

3)The 80 point increase in slugging was not arbitrary-if all 38 of his sb's were with nobody on or as Pierre being the lead runner, that's what his extra bases would increase his slugging this year. Yes, not all 38 of those were in that situation-but at least 29 of them were.

 

Why should I even respond to this knowing that you obviously didn't even read the article? The 75% factor is more thoroughly answered in the article and an even more thorough explanation than that is also linked.

 

Really there is no point to continuing this discussion. You refuse to read or acknowledge anything that is contrary to your off the cuff calculations and you obviously won't budge an inch no matter how much evidence I post to show that you are overvaluing stolen bases. This is a waste of my time.

[Chocolate Milk]

We actually satisfy two other conditions of that article when it is prudent to steal bases. One is that the player in the 2 spot has been a double play threat most of the season. Second, our lack of power means that for a large part of the season, barely any of our hitters could get somebody home from first base-which makes the stolen base more valuable. So we are prime candidates for 2 of the 3 reasons why a team should run.

 

This still doesn't make stolen bases worth more at 75% success rate. Sorry.

[NorthsideAvenger]

Personally, I want nothing to do with either Pierre or Podsenik. I know Hendry plans to extend Pierre, but I rather see Chris Walker or even Sam Fuld be given a chance to win the spot at Spring Training in 2007. If one does, and struggles, he would be cheap enough to replace. The Cubs are going to have to developed some homegrown position players.

[Warren Brusstar]

 

perfect example of why small-ball doesn't work--even with fast players. giving up outs by needlessly trying to steal is stupid.

 

there are only a few guys in the league whom i'd give the perpetual green light to, and neither of these guys is one of them.

 

the stealing is not what i like about podsednik, it's his plate discipline--which is much more important than speed or steals or bunting the runner over.

 

Podsednik has a whopping 20 point advantage in OBP. Over the course of 700 plate appearances, that 14 additional times that he gets on base. At most, that's about 4-5 runs over the course of the entire season.

 

Now, add in Pierre's superior defense and more efficient baserunning -- see Dan Schroedinger's well-reasoned BP article from 7/13/2006 that concluded that Juan Pierre is the best baserunner in the game and generates approximately 4-7 runs per year solely from his ability to advance bases on balls hit in play -- and Podsednik's OBP advantage is negated entirely.

[hardcorecubfan]

but he has a geat ethnic name!!

[CuseCubFan69]

Personally, I want nothing to do with either Pierre or Podsenik. I know Hendry plans to extend Pierre, but I rather see Chris Walker or even Sam Fuld be given a chance to win the spot at Spring Training in 2007. If one does, and struggles, he would be cheap enough to replace. The Cubs are going to have to developed some homegrown position players.

 

Me either but after the Izertis trade there is no reason to think that Hendry will not go after the proverbial speedy leadoff guy. Hendry hasn't changed his MO and never will.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

perfect example of why small-ball doesn't work--even with fast players. giving up outs by needlessly trying to steal is stupid.

 

there are only a few guys in the league whom i'd give the perpetual green light to, and neither of these guys is one of them.

 

the stealing is not what i like about podsednik, it's his plate discipline--which is much more important than speed or steals or bunting the runner over.

 

Podsednik has a whopping 20 point advantage in OBP. Over the course of 700 plate appearances, that 14 additional times that he gets on base. At most, that's about 4-5 runs over the course of the entire season.

 

Now, add in Pierre's superior defense and more efficient baserunning -- see Dan Schroedinger's well-reasoned BP article from 7/13/2006 that concluded that Juan Pierre is the best baserunner in the game and generates approximately 4-7 runs per year solely from his ability to advance bases on balls hit in play -- and Podsednik's OBP advantage is negated entirely.

 

good points, but can you give me the gist of the BP article?

 

pierre may be a superficially superior baserunner, but he's also a perrenial leader in productive outs made, which means absolutely nothing.

[BigbadB]

Personally, I want nothing to do with either Pierre or Podsenik. I know Hendry plans to extend Pierre, but I rather see Chris Walker or even Sam Fuld be given a chance to win the spot at Spring Training in 2007. If one does, and struggles, he would be cheap enough to replace. The Cubs are going to have to developed some homegrown position players.

 

I agree. If you are going to go with a "speed" guy at lead off, might as well grab one of your farmhands. They can nearly duplicate the production of a Juan Pierre or Podsednik at league minimum. Heck, you might even find one who is willing to take a walk.

 

Hendry needs to sit down and analyze just what exactly makes the high scoring teams a high scoring team. He needs to look at the Los Angeles Dodgers top of the order. He needs to look at Boston's top of the order. He needs to look at NYY's top of the order. And not just the top of the order. The whole line up should be filled with quality OBP guys.

 

He needs to notice that Boston had a semi-slow moving semitrailer 1b by the name of Youkilis batting lead off, and it didn't hurt their run production one bit. In fact, it bolstered it even more.

 

1b with piano on his back with .390 OBP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>100m dash world record holder with a .325 OBP.