Maybe the White Sox are for real.

[USSoccer]

Podsednik is indisputably horrid at baseball. He is a 0-tool player. If the trade cleared enough payroll for Iguchi, AJ, Hermanson, and El Duque to be added in the same offseason, then the trade obviously looks better in terms of effect.

 

This last sentence is the only context in which one could make the argument that trading Lee for Podsednik wasn't monumentally dumb. On it's own merits, it's one of the worst trades ever. A wash defensively, and a complete wipeout offensively. The only thing Podsednik is better than Lee at is being white.

 

They won because their ENTIRE staff had career years. Literally every guy. Not because Podsednik ran around and stole bases at a 71% clip (below break even).

[ELCABALLO45]

Ok I was gone but I have a couple things to say...

 

1. I neve said PODS is a better player then Carlos Lee...

 

2. moochpuppy is dead on with this

 

I don't understand why everyone on this board thinks you need to have 9 home run hitters in the lineup. I forgot who asked this but I would rather have 05' Pods leading off then Manny. You need guys to get on base so that the "meat" of the order can knock them in. Yes the White Sox had great pitching but to say they would of won without PODS and with Carlos Lee is pretty foolish.

 

05' Carlos Lee = .324 OBP, yeah Carlos would be a better at lead off then PODS :-k

 

Pods was a huge for them, and to say he wasn't well.... :roll:

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't understand why everyone on this board thinks you need to have 9 home run hitters in the lineup.

 

Because a HR is the best possible outcome of any at bat. You don't sacrifice everything for power, but, given the choice between 8 HR hitters and 8 IF single hitters, I don't think the choice is difficult.

 

 

I forgot who asked this but I would rather have 05' Pods leading off then Manny.

 

...

[ELCABALLO45]

I don't understand why everyone on this board thinks you need to have 9 home run hitters in the lineup.

 

Because a HR is the best possible outcome of any at bat. You don't sacrifice everything for power, but, given the choice between 8 HR hitters and 8 IF single hitters, I don't think the choice is difficult.

 

 

I forgot who asked this but I would rather have 05' Pods leading off then Manny.

 

...

 

 

:banghead:

 

That was not a option, No one ever said pick between 8 HR hitters or 8 IF single hitters. Belive it or not you DO need guys to get on base and to get a spark going. You can't simply wait for someone to hit a home run and to win games.

 

And Manny leading off would scare me.

[CoolHandLuke]

I want the best friggin 8 or 9 hitters I can get, bottom line.

 

I couldn't care less how they fit together in a lineup.

 

You sacrifice production for perceived lineup "positions" and i'll take the productive players and pull their lineup positions out of a hat and we'll see who scores more runs.

[ELCABALLO45]

Let me ask you a question, Do you think Soriano is a good lead off hitter?

[XZero771679666304]

Ok I was gone but I have a couple things to say...

 

1. I neve said PODS is a better player then Carlos Lee...

 

2. moochpuppy is dead on with this

 

I don't understand why everyone on this board thinks you need to have 9 home run hitters in the lineup. I forgot who asked this but I would rather have 05' Pods leading off then Manny. You need guys to get on base so that the "meat" of the order can knock them in. Yes the White Sox had great pitching but to say they would of won without PODS and with Carlos Lee is pretty foolish.

 

05' Carlos Lee = .324 OBP, yeah Carlos would be a better at lead off then PODS :-k

 

Pods was a huge for them, and to say he wasn't well.... :roll:

 

The notion the he was integral is, well, :roll:

 

The guy had a very average OBP. He didn't contribute anything as far as run production. Few doubles, few triples, no homers. His 59 steals were more than offset by 23 caught stealing, which equates to an abysmal 71%. For a "base stealer" that is really bad, past the point of being detrimental. Consequently he didn't score many runs. He was a mediocre defender.

 

What did he do that was "huge" for them? Nothing. Not a damn thing. You say get on base? He didn't do that well at all, so hell yes, I'd rather have Ramirez and his .400+ OBP in the leadoff slot over Pods, as it serves both purposes. And the speed? Totally moot when you get nabbed a third of the time you try and steal. Statistically speaking, the Sox would have been better off had Podsednik not attempted a single SB in 2005. That's how inefficient he was.

 

Let's quantify that a bit. 85% is an acceptable steal rate. To have achieved that, he'd have to have had 13 fewer CS, or 10 CS. So thirteen times, he needlessly erased himself from the basepaths. 13 times he wasted a trip to first. So if you apply those 13 self erasures to his OBP, he effectively lowered his OBP from .351 to .327. A .327 OBP (or even a .351, really) from a guy who isn't a run producer really isn't acceptable. If you have a OBP in that range but can still maintain an .850+ OPS (see Carlos Lee), you're still a benefit.

 

Scott Podsednik is emblematic of this ridiculous notion that you have to slot a lineup according to some antiquated design. It makes no sense. It's not about having 9 home run hitters in the lineup, it's about having the 9 players that will net you the most runs. We're not talking about 9 Rob Deers, the best 9 producers/creators. OPS, EqA, etc. If you had a lineup of 9 ARods and you removed one in favor of a guy like Pods, you're crazy, and your team will be worse off. Clearly. Categorically.

 

And maybe if he had a .400 OBP and stole bases a 90% clip, he might have had the effect that people want to credit him with, but he didn't. It was 100% false perception. The numbers don't lie. The amazing thing is that not only did Podsednik not do what Carlos Lee would have, he didn't even do what you guys are saying he did. He did not help the team with his legs and he did not get on base all the time. Did not.

 

The bottom line is that if you replace Podsednik with Carlos Lee in 2005, the Sox are better. There simply isn't any rational argument to the contrary.

[XZero771679666304]

Let me ask you a question, Do you think Soriano is a good lead off hitter?

 

 

Of course not. And you know what? He has gotten on base at about the same rate as Pods, stolen bases with much better proficiency, and knocked the stuffing out of the ball.

[ELCABALLO45]

Ok I was gone but I have a couple things to say...

 

1. I neve said PODS is a better player then Carlos Lee...

 

2. moochpuppy is dead on with this

 

I don't understand why everyone on this board thinks you need to have 9 home run hitters in the lineup. I forgot who asked this but I would rather have 05' Pods leading off then Manny. You need guys to get on base so that the "meat" of the order can knock them in. Yes the White Sox had great pitching but to say they would of won without PODS and with Carlos Lee is pretty foolish.

 

05' Carlos Lee = .324 OBP, yeah Carlos would be a better at lead off then PODS :-k

 

Pods was a huge for them, and to say he wasn't well.... :roll:

 

The notion the he was integral is, well, :roll:

 

The guy had a very average OBP. He didn't contribute anything as far as run production. Few doubles, few triples, no homers. His 59 steals were more than offset by 23 caught stealing, which equates to an abysmal 71%. For a "base stealer" that is really bad, past the point of being detrimental. Consequently he didn't score many runs. He was a mediocre defender.

 

What did he do that was "huge" for them? Nothing. Not a damn thing. You say get on base? He didn't do that well at all, so hell yes, I'd rather have Ramirez and his .400+ OBP in the leadoff slot over Pods, as it serves both purposes. And the speed? Totally moot when you get nabbed a third of the time you try and steal. Statistically speaking, the Sox would have been better off had Podsednik not attempted a single SB in 2005. That's how inefficient he was.

 

Let's quantify that a bit. 85% is an acceptable steal rate. To have achieved that, he'd have to have had 13 fewer CS, or 10 CS. So thirteen times, he needlessly erased himself from the basepaths. 13 times he wasted a trip to first. So if you apply those 13 self erasures to his OBP, he effectively lowered his OBP from .351 to .327. A .327 OBP (or even a .351, really) from a guy who isn't a run producer really isn't acceptable. If you have a OBP in that range but can still maintain an .850+ OPS (see Carlos Lee), you're still a benefit.

 

Scott Podsednik is emblematic of this ridiculous notion that you have to slot a lineup according to some antiquated design. It makes no sense. It's not about having 9 home run hitters in the lineup, it's about having the 9 players that will net you the most runs. We're not talking about 9 Rob Deers, the best 9 producers/creators. OPS, EqA, etc. If you had a lineup of 9 ARods and you removed one in favor of a guy like Pods, you're crazy, and your team will be worse off. Clearly. Categorically.

 

And maybe if he had a .400 OBP and stole bases a 90% clip, he might have had the effect that people want to credit him with, but he didn't. It was 100% false perception. The numbers don't lie. The amazing thing is that not only did Podsednik not do what Carlos Lee would have, he didn't even do what you guys are saying he did. He did not help the team with his legs and he did not get on base all the time. Did not.

 

The bottom line is that if you replace Podsednik with Carlos Lee in 2005, the Sox are better. There simply isn't any rational argument to the contrary.

 

Okay where to start..

 

1. Even if it was average, im pretty sure it was good enough for 2nd best on his team. They needed guys to get on base, and score on hits other then home runs. His speed allowed him to do that.

 

2. He was the catalyst for the 05 World Series Champions, im pretty sure that is more than enough. He had game changing speed. To say that didn't matter well... :roll:

 

3. He didn't do anything? Oh well.. I guess that walk off homerun didn't mean anything, who knew?

 

4. Im pretty sure the White Sox had a choice, between Lee and PODS and they picked PODS, I think that worked out for them ;)

[ELCABALLO45]

Let me ask you a question, Do you think Soriano is a good lead off hitter?

 

 

Of course not. And you know what? He has gotten on base at about the same rate as Pods, stolen bases with much better proficiency, and knocked the stuffing out of the ball.

 

Pods 05' = .351 OBP, 47 BB

 

Soriano 07' = .337, 31 BB

 

How do you figure he gets on the same rate?

[XZero771679666304]

Ok I was gone but I have a couple things to say...

 

1. I neve said PODS is a better player then Carlos Lee...

 

2. moochpuppy is dead on with this

 

I don't understand why everyone on this board thinks you need to have 9 home run hitters in the lineup. I forgot who asked this but I would rather have 05' Pods leading off then Manny. You need guys to get on base so that the "meat" of the order can knock them in. Yes the White Sox had great pitching but to say they would of won without PODS and with Carlos Lee is pretty foolish.

 

05' Carlos Lee = .324 OBP, yeah Carlos would be a better at lead off then PODS :-k

 

Pods was a huge for them, and to say he wasn't well.... :roll:

 

The notion the he was integral is, well, :roll:

 

The guy had a very average OBP. He didn't contribute anything as far as run production. Few doubles, few triples, no homers. His 59 steals were more than offset by 23 caught stealing, which equates to an abysmal 71%. For a "base stealer" that is really bad, past the point of being detrimental. Consequently he didn't score many runs. He was a mediocre defender.

 

What did he do that was "huge" for them? Nothing. Not a damn thing. You say get on base? He didn't do that well at all, so hell yes, I'd rather have Ramirez and his .400+ OBP in the leadoff slot over Pods, as it serves both purposes. And the speed? Totally moot when you get nabbed a third of the time you try and steal. Statistically speaking, the Sox would have been better off had Podsednik not attempted a single SB in 2005. That's how inefficient he was.

 

Let's quantify that a bit. 85% is an acceptable steal rate. To have achieved that, he'd have to have had 13 fewer CS, or 10 CS. So thirteen times, he needlessly erased himself from the basepaths. 13 times he wasted a trip to first. So if you apply those 13 self erasures to his OBP, he effectively lowered his OBP from .351 to .327. A .327 OBP (or even a .351, really) from a guy who isn't a run producer really isn't acceptable. If you have a OBP in that range but can still maintain an .850+ OPS (see Carlos Lee), you're still a benefit.

 

Scott Podsednik is emblematic of this ridiculous notion that you have to slot a lineup according to some antiquated design. It makes no sense. It's not about having 9 home run hitters in the lineup, it's about having the 9 players that will net you the most runs. We're not talking about 9 Rob Deers, the best 9 producers/creators. OPS, EqA, etc. If you had a lineup of 9 ARods and you removed one in favor of a guy like Pods, you're crazy, and your team will be worse off. Clearly. Categorically.

 

And maybe if he had a .400 OBP and stole bases a 90% clip, he might have had the effect that people want to credit him with, but he didn't. It was 100% false perception. The numbers don't lie. The amazing thing is that not only did Podsednik not do what Carlos Lee would have, he didn't even do what you guys are saying he did. He did not help the team with his legs and he did not get on base all the time. Did not.

 

The bottom line is that if you replace Podsednik with Carlos Lee in 2005, the Sox are better. There simply isn't any rational argument to the contrary.

 

Okay where to start..

 

1. Even if it was average, im pretty sure it was good enough for 2nd best on his team. They needed guys to get on base, and score on hits other then home runs. His speed allowed him to do that.

 

2. He was the catalyst for the 05 World Series Champions, im pretty sure that is more than enough. He had game changing speed. To say that didn't matter well... :roll:

 

3. He didn't do anything? Oh well.. I guess that walk off homerun didn't mean anything, who knew?

 

4. Im pretty sure the White Sox had a choice, between Lee and PODS and they picked PODS, I think that worked out for them ;)

 

No, no, no, no.

 

There are established markers for base stealers. If you are stealing bases at less than an 80% clip you are HURTING your team. Pods had a 71% SB rate. His running HURT the Sox. HURT. Looking at 59 steals and saying "Oooohhh, that's game changing speed" is patently ignorant. The man was a mediocre base stealer.

 

And you talk about him getting on base for the home run hitters as if he got on base at a high rate. HE DIDN'T.

 

 

Words like catalyst are buzzwords that mean nothing. Pods wasn't a catalyst for anything other than the improved CS% for AL catchers. He sure didn't get on base enough to make much difference, and his getting caught stealing at a ridiculous rate only reduced his value.

 

And we're talking about the big picture, not one AB in the Series. Carlos Lee would have benefited the team more over the entire season than Podsednik.

 

But if you want to ascribe some mystical value to him that none of the statistics show (which in fact contradict), go ahead.

[XZero771679666304]

Let me ask you a question, Do you think Soriano is a good lead off hitter?

 

 

Of course not. And you know what? He has gotten on base at about the same rate as Pods, stolen bases with much better proficiency, and knocked the stuffing out of the ball.

 

Pods 05' = .351 OBP, 47 BB

 

Soriano 07' = .337, 31 BB

 

How do you figure he gets on the same rate?

 

Career numbers. Both have poor career OBP, but Sori's are easier to tolerate because he'll drive himself in 35+ times. He also puts himself in scoring position more often. Also, Sori's career high OBP is equal to Pod's, but with the bonus of 61 more XBH than Pods, resulting in 39 more runs scored.

 

And lets look at a more important stat, OPS.

 

Pods '05 = .700

 

Soriano '07 = .897

 

Or runs:

 

Pods '05 = 80 runs

 

Soriano '07 = 97 runs

 

And I'm saying Soriano isn't a very good leadoff hitter. I guarantee you that 99.99% of baseball execs would take Sori over Pods with no hesitation whatsoever.

[ELCABALLO45]

Ok I was gone but I have a couple things to say...

 

1. I neve said PODS is a better player then Carlos Lee...

 

2. moochpuppy is dead on with this

 

I don't understand why everyone on this board thinks you need to have 9 home run hitters in the lineup. I forgot who asked this but I would rather have 05' Pods leading off then Manny. You need guys to get on base so that the "meat" of the order can knock them in. Yes the White Sox had great pitching but to say they would of won without PODS and with Carlos Lee is pretty foolish.

 

05' Carlos Lee = .324 OBP, yeah Carlos would be a better at lead off then PODS :-k

 

Pods was a huge for them, and to say he wasn't well.... :roll:

 

The notion the he was integral is, well, :roll:

 

The guy had a very average OBP. He didn't contribute anything as far as run production. Few doubles, few triples, no homers. His 59 steals were more than offset by 23 caught stealing, which equates to an abysmal 71%. For a "base stealer" that is really bad, past the point of being detrimental. Consequently he didn't score many runs. He was a mediocre defender.

 

What did he do that was "huge" for them? Nothing. Not a damn thing. You say get on base? He didn't do that well at all, so hell yes, I'd rather have Ramirez and his .400+ OBP in the leadoff slot over Pods, as it serves both purposes. And the speed? Totally moot when you get nabbed a third of the time you try and steal. Statistically speaking, the Sox would have been better off had Podsednik not attempted a single SB in 2005. That's how inefficient he was.

 

Let's quantify that a bit. 85% is an acceptable steal rate. To have achieved that, he'd have to have had 13 fewer CS, or 10 CS. So thirteen times, he needlessly erased himself from the basepaths. 13 times he wasted a trip to first. So if you apply those 13 self erasures to his OBP, he effectively lowered his OBP from .351 to .327. A .327 OBP (or even a .351, really) from a guy who isn't a run producer really isn't acceptable. If you have a OBP in that range but can still maintain an .850+ OPS (see Carlos Lee), you're still a benefit.

 

Scott Podsednik is emblematic of this ridiculous notion that you have to slot a lineup according to some antiquated design. It makes no sense. It's not about having 9 home run hitters in the lineup, it's about having the 9 players that will net you the most runs. We're not talking about 9 Rob Deers, the best 9 producers/creators. OPS, EqA, etc. If you had a lineup of 9 ARods and you removed one in favor of a guy like Pods, you're crazy, and your team will be worse off. Clearly. Categorically.

 

And maybe if he had a .400 OBP and stole bases a 90% clip, he might have had the effect that people want to credit him with, but he didn't. It was 100% false perception. The numbers don't lie. The amazing thing is that not only did Podsednik not do what Carlos Lee would have, he didn't even do what you guys are saying he did. He did not help the team with his legs and he did not get on base all the time. Did not.

 

The bottom line is that if you replace Podsednik with Carlos Lee in 2005, the Sox are better. There simply isn't any rational argument to the contrary.

 

Okay where to start..

 

1. Even if it was average, im pretty sure it was good enough for 2nd best on his team. They needed guys to get on base, and score on hits other then home runs. His speed allowed him to do that.

 

2. He was the catalyst for the 05 World Series Champions, im pretty sure that is more than enough. He had game changing speed. To say that didn't matter well... :roll:

 

3. He didn't do anything? Oh well.. I guess that walk off homerun didn't mean anything, who knew?

 

4. Im pretty sure the White Sox had a choice, between Lee and PODS and they picked PODS, I think that worked out for them ;)

 

No, no, no, no.

 

There are established markers for base stealers. If you are stealing bases at less than an 80% clip you are HURTING your team. Pods had a 71% SB rate. His running HURT the Sox. HURT. Looking at 59 steals and saying "Oooohhh, that's game changing speed" is patently ignorant. The man was a mediocre base stealer.

 

And you talk about him getting on base for the home run hitters as if he got on base at a high rate. HE DIDN'T.

 

 

Words like catalyst are buzzwords that mean nothing. Pods wasn't a catalyst for anything other than the improved CS% for AL catchers. He sure didn't get on base enough to make much difference, and his getting caught stealing at a ridiculous rate only reduced his value.

 

And we're talking about the big picture, not one AB in the Series. Carlos Lee would have benefited the team more over the entire season than Podsednik.

 

But if you want to ascribe some mystical value to him that none of the statistics show (which in fact contradict), go ahead.

 

FYI, you don't judge how fast a guy is JUST off of Stolen Bases. But just for fun, he stole 3rd base 18 out of 19 times which lead to sac flys and rbi groundouts, but im sure Carlos Lee could do that. :^o

 

Again, the White Sox wanted a fast, game changer at the top of the line up which they got in PODS. They had Konerko,Dye and Everett and Rowand. They needed someone to lead off and get on base for those guys to knock in.

 

They obviously did something right, and PODS was HUGE for them rather you like it or not.

[ELCABALLO45]

Let me ask you a question, Do you think Soriano is a good lead off hitter?

 

 

Of course not. And you know what? He has gotten on base at about the same rate as Pods, stolen bases with much better proficiency, and knocked the stuffing out of the ball.

 

Pods 05' = .351 OBP, 47 BB

 

Soriano 07' = .337, 31 BB

 

How do you figure he gets on the same rate?

 

Career numbers. Both have poor career OBP, but Sori's are easier to tolerate because he'll drive himself in 35+ times. He also puts himself in scoring position more often. Also, Sori's career high OBP is equal to Pod's, but with the bonus of 61 more XBH than Pods, resulting in 39 more runs scored.

 

And lets look at a more important stat, OPS.

 

Pods '05 = .700

 

Soriano '07 = .897

 

Or runs:

 

Pods '05 = 80 runs

 

Soriano '07 = 97 runs

 

And I'm saying Soriano isn't a very good leadoff hitter. I guarantee you that 99.99% of baseball execs would take Sori over Pods with no hesitation whatsoever.

 

As a lead off hitter, your main job is to get on base, do we agree? PODS in 05 could do that better than Soriano in 07.

 

And I NEVER said I would take PODS over Soriano, however If I had to pick my lead off hitter... I would pick 05 PODS over 07 Soriano...

[imb]

carlos lee 2005 eqa .275

scot podsednik 2005 eqa .252

 

game over

[ELCABALLO45]

carlos lee 2005 eqa .275

scot podsednik 2005 eqa .252

 

game over

 

Again, I never said Pods was a better player, but he is a better lead off hitter than Lee...

[imb]

carlos lee 2005 eqa .275

scot podsednik 2005 eqa .252

 

game over

 

Again, I never said Pods was a better player, but he is a better lead off hitter than Lee...

 

nine carlos lees are going to score more runs than one scot podsednik and 8 carlos lees.

[ELCABALLO45]

carlos lee 2005 eqa .275

scot podsednik 2005 eqa .252

 

game over

 

Again, I never said Pods was a better player, but he is a better lead off hitter than Lee...

 

nine carlos lees are going to score more runs than one scot podsednik and 8 carlos lees.

 

Maybe, but that team would not win anything either...

[XZero771679666304]

 

As a lead off hitter, your main job is to get on base, do we agree? PODS in 05 could do that better than Soriano in 07.

 

And I NEVER said I would take PODS over Soriano, however If I had to pick my lead off hitter... I would pick 05 PODS over 07 Soriano...

 

You're stuck on this notion that Pods got on base a ton and that was his primary value. The problem with that is that he didn't get on base a ton. He didn't score a lot of runs.

 

You're ignoring the concrete evidence that says he wasn't very good, even at the job you are saying made such a huge difference. You are buying into the mythos of the 2005 Sox and not the reality of the 2005 Sox. The reality where Pods didn't get on base a high rate, didn't get driven in by the heart of the order a lot, and didn't change the game with his speed. Not many doubles, not many triples (where's that game changing speed?). Poor stolen base rate, not many runs.

 

The reality where the only stat in which the Sox were in the upper half of the league was homers. That was a team that waited for the homer. Dead last in doubles, way down the list in triples. Bad team OBP (just because Pods had the second highest OBP on a team with no one that got on base does not mean he was good at it), bad team CS%, middle of the pack in sacrifices. Average to well below average in all the "small ball" areas.

 

I have empirical evidence on my side. You are the one who is choosing what to believe. The stats don't lie. This is a clear case of perception vs. reality.

 

If you want continue to argue, you'll have to find someone else. I find it taxing to debate with people who look past the facts.

[XZero771679666304]

carlos lee 2005 eqa .275

scot podsednik 2005 eqa .252

 

game over

 

Again, I never said Pods was a better player, but he is a better lead off hitter than Lee...

 

nine carlos lees are going to score more runs than one scot podsednik and 8 carlos lees.

 

Maybe, but that team would not win anything either...

 

#-o

[Bote McBoteface]

carlos lee 2005 eqa .275

scot podsednik 2005 eqa .252

 

game over

 

Again, I never said Pods was a better player, but he is a better lead off hitter than Lee...

 

nine carlos lees are going to score more runs than one scot podsednik and 8 carlos lees.

 

Maybe, but that team would not win anything either...

 

I would like for you to be promoted to GM of the Brewers.

[XZero771679666304]

carlos lee 2005 eqa .275

scot podsednik 2005 eqa .252

 

game over

 

Again, I never said Pods was a better player, but he is a better lead off hitter than Lee...

 

nine carlos lees are going to score more runs than one scot podsednik and 8 carlos lees.

 

Maybe, but that team would not win anything either...

 

I would like for you to be promoted to GM of the Brewers.

 

X2

[ELCABALLO45]

 

As a lead off hitter, your main job is to get on base, do we agree? PODS in 05 could do that better than Soriano in 07.

 

And I NEVER said I would take PODS over Soriano, however If I had to pick my lead off hitter... I would pick 05 PODS over 07 Soriano...

 

You're stuck on this notion that Pods got on base a ton and that was his primary value. The problem with that is that he didn't get on base a ton. He didn't score a lot of runs.

 

You're ignoring the concrete evidence that says he wasn't very good, even at the job you are saying made such a huge difference. You are buying into the mythos of the 2005 Sox and not the reality of the 2005 Sox. The reality where Pods didn't get on base a high rate, didn't get driven in by the heart of the order a lot, and didn't change the game with his speed. Not many doubles, not many triples (where's that game changing speed?). Poor stolen base rate, not many runs.

 

The reality where the only stat in which the Sox were in the upper half of the league was homers. That was a team that waited for the homer. Dead last in doubles, way down the list in triples. Bad team OBP (just because Pods had the second highest OBP on a team with no one that got on base does not mean he was good at it), bad team CS%, middle of the pack in sacrifices. Average to well below average in all the "small ball" areas.

 

I have empirical evidence on my side. You are the one who is choosing what to believe. The stats don't lie. This is a clear case of perception vs. reality.

 

If you want continue to argue, you'll have to find someone else. I find it taxing to debate with people who look past the facts.

 

So he was not very good? He was an all star...

 

He was also hurt, if he stays healthy he would of scored over 100 runs.

 

2005 Post Season

 

 

.286 avg.

2 HR

6 RBI

9 RUNS

14 HITS

1 DOUBLE

3 TRIPLES

6 STOLEN BASES

7 BB's

.397 OBP

.551 SLG%

.948 OPS

 

your right he was not good at what he did :roll:

 

Without him, the Sox do not wave the 2005 Baner

[ELCABALLO45]

carlos lee 2005 eqa .275

scot podsednik 2005 eqa .252

 

game over

 

Again, I never said Pods was a better player, but he is a better lead off hitter than Lee...

 

nine carlos lees are going to score more runs than one scot podsednik and 8 carlos lees.

 

Maybe, but that team would not win anything either...

 

 

I would like for you to be promoted to GM of the Brewers.

 

 

Ok maybe I got carried away there, BUT.. You can't have a team of 8 Carlos Lee's so that is pretty much pointless to even say that

[XZero771679666304]

 

As a lead off hitter, your main job is to get on base, do we agree? PODS in 05 could do that better than Soriano in 07.

 

And I NEVER said I would take PODS over Soriano, however If I had to pick my lead off hitter... I would pick 05 PODS over 07 Soriano...

 

You're stuck on this notion that Pods got on base a ton and that was his primary value. The problem with that is that he didn't get on base a ton. He didn't score a lot of runs.

 

You're ignoring the concrete evidence that says he wasn't very good, even at the job you are saying made such a huge difference. You are buying into the mythos of the 2005 Sox and not the reality of the 2005 Sox. The reality where Pods didn't get on base a high rate, didn't get driven in by the heart of the order a lot, and didn't change the game with his speed. Not many doubles, not many triples (where's that game changing speed?). Poor stolen base rate, not many runs.

 

The reality where the only stat in which the Sox were in the upper half of the league was homers. That was a team that waited for the homer. Dead last in doubles, way down the list in triples. Bad team OBP (just because Pods had the second highest OBP on a team with no one that got on base does not mean he was good at it), bad team CS%, middle of the pack in sacrifices. Average to well below average in all the "small ball" areas.

 

I have empirical evidence on my side. You are the one who is choosing what to believe. The stats don't lie. This is a clear case of perception vs. reality.

 

If you want continue to argue, you'll have to find someone else. I find it taxing to debate with people who look past the facts.

 

So he was not very good? He was an all star...

 

He was also hurt, if he stays healthy he would of scored over 100 runs.

 

2005 Post Season

 

 

.286 avg.

2 HR

6 RBI

9 RUNS

14 HITS

1 DOUBLE

3 TRIPLES

6 STOLEN BASES

7 BB's

.397 OBP

.551 SLG%

.948 OPS

 

your right he was not good at what he did :roll:

 

Without him, the Sox do not wave the 2005 Baner

:thumbsup: