Maybe the White Sox are for real.

[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

:thumbsup:

 

;)

[Bote McBoteface]

I thought you got carried away when you said that you would prefer Pods leading off to Manny leading off and then later said we could all agree that a leadoff hitter's job is to get on base.

 

 

 

Manny Ramirez gets on base more often than Pods does. In fact, Manny Ramirez has never posted an OBP as low as Pods's was in 05. He has, however, posted an OBP that was 100 points higher than Pods' 05 season. Twice.

 

[ELCABALLO45]

I thought you got carried away when you said that you would prefer Pods leading off to Manny leading off and then later said we could all agree that a leadoff hitter's job is to get on base.

 

 

 

Manny Ramirez gets on base more often than Pods does. In fact, Manny Ramirez has never posted an OBP as low as Pods's was in 05.

 

 

Okay I would rather have Manny then PODS leading off, but PODS is a better lead off hitter, does that make sense?

[Bote McBoteface]

It doesn't, no. But I'm going to bed or something. This got boring.

[ELCABALLO45]

It doesn't, no. But I'm going to bed or something. This got boring.

 

Manny is to good to bad lead off, you want him hitting 3rd or 4th

[ELCABALLO45]

Ok Manny is Manny and he could probably hit anywhere, and probably better than PODS.

 

The whole point of this argument , The White Sox needed a Lead Off Hitter, so they got PODS. Pods was the speedy spark plug they needed and Carlos gave the brewers a clean up hitter they needed. Rather you like it or not a lead off hitter is a important part of a baseball team. History proves that. The White Sox were a slow team before PODS and he gave them game changing speed at the top of the order.

[RedFlash]

Ok Manny is Manny and he could probably hit anywhere, and probably better than PODS.

 

The whole point of this argument , The White Sox needed a Lead Off Hitter, so they got PODS. Pods was the speedy spark plug they needed and Carlos gave the brewers a clean up hitter they needed. Rather you like it or not a lead off hitter is a important part of a baseball team. History proves that. The White Sox were a slow team before PODS and he gave them game changing speed at the top of the order.

 

Yeah the White Sox needed a leadoff hitter, but Pods is clearly not a leadoff hitter. He would have been a better 2nd or 8 hitter in a lineup. In fact adding Pods and subtracting Lee made the White Sox a worse offensive team.

 

White Sox:

2004 w/o Pods.268/.333/.457 with 865 runs scored on average of 5.3 runs per game. (78 SB out of 129 chances) They were 3rd in the AL in offense.

2005 w/ Pods

.262/.322/.425 with 741 runs scored on average of 4.5 runs per game. (137 SB out of 204 chances) They were 9th in the AL in offense.

 

Brewers:

2004 w/ Pods

.248/.321/.387 with 634 runs scored on an average of 3.9 runs per game. (138 SB out of 178 chances). They were 14th in the NL in offense.

2005 w/o Pods.

.259/.331/.423 with 726 runs scored on an average of 4. 4 runs per game. (79 SB out of 113 chances). They were 6th in the NL in offense.

 

While the White Sox did win the World Series in 2005, Pods was not the reason why they did. The White Sox and the Brewers had BETTER offenses without Pods, then with Pods.

 

Besides during the 2005 season, Pods impact was so great that ALL of one White Sox hitter had 100 rbis. That was Paul Konerko. Second highest was Jermaine Dye with 86 rbis. In other words....Pods had LITTLE affect on the White Sox that season, period. The White Sox improve 7 games with Pods. The Brewers improved by 16 games that season. So again, Pods had little affect on the White Sox. In fact you can say that the White Sox pitchers had MORE IMPACT that season then Pods, and they could've sign Lofton to do what Pods did.

 

If you're not getting the jist, the simple truth is...Pods had no direct affect on the White Sox season. They had career yrs from the pitching, and they stay reasonably healthy.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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...

 

So either:

 

Runs don't lead to wins.

Or Podsednik's inspiring presence made the pitching staff so awesome?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I thought you got carried away when you said that you would prefer Pods leading off to Manny leading off and then later said we could all agree that a leadoff hitter's job is to get on base.

 

 

 

Manny Ramirez gets on base more often than Pods does. In fact, Manny Ramirez has never posted an OBP as low as Pods's was in 05.

 

 

Okay I would rather have Manny then PODS leading off, but PODS is a better lead off hitter, does that make sense?

 

Not even a little. The fact that youhave to try to make such nonsensical distinctions shows how illogical your position is.

 

It's cool, a lot of people have been brainwashed by learning their opinions about baseball from reading Ring Lardner books as a kid and reading bad baseball writers who worship the dead ball era. But it's still wrong.

[USSoccer]

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...

 

 

Oh my Kent. Leadoff hitter is not a flipping position. Seriously, I have a rock that keeps tigers away. Would you like to buy it?

[USSoccer]

Ok Manny is Manny and he could probably hit anywhere, and probably better than PODS.

 

The whole point of this argument , The White Sox needed a Lead Off Hitter, so they got PODS. Pods was the speedy spark plug they needed and Carlos gave the brewers a clean up hitter they needed. Rather you like it or not a lead off hitter is a important part of a baseball team. History proves that. The White Sox were a slow team before PODS and he gave them game changing speed at the top of the order.

 

I have taken the liberty of bolding everything in your post that's meaningless, cliched or plain wrong. It reads like standard sports cliche boilerplate.

 

Your post should actually read:

 

The whole point of this argument, The White Sox [are kind of run by an idiot]...so they got Pods. Pods was the [overrated left fielder] and Carlos gave the Brewers a [ridiculously good LF for what amounted to a 4th OF and a random bullpen arm]. [Wh]ether you like it or not [you are reading this]. The White Sox were a slow team before [scott] Podesdnik and he [made them marginally faster while getting caught stealing at a rate nearly 15% below break even].

 

Thats better.

[moochpuppy]

It's a lost agrument with these guys ELCABALLO45.

 

I feel sorry for some of you. I think you have been sitting behind your computers for so long you have forgotten that baseball is actually played by human beings and not by a sabermetric computer.

 

Enjoy the season!

[USSoccer]

It's a lost agrument with these guys ELCABALLO45.

 

I feel sorry for some of you. I think you have been sitting behind your computers for so long you have forgotten that baseball is actually played by human beings and not by a sabermetric computer.

 

Yes, you're right. In my ideal world, the Cubs would 01001010010101000101010100010101011101010100010101011000010101000101010101110101010100010101010111101010111010110 their way to a championship.

[CubinNY]

I I think you have been sitting behind your computers for so long you have forgotten that baseball is actually played by human beings and not by a sabermetric computer.

 

Enjoy the season!

Saved the best for last.

 

I love it.

[UMFan83]

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.

 

HE ONLY SCORED 80 RUNS IN 2005

 

And if he stayed "healthy" and played all 162 games, he projects to 100 runs scored. Good for 23rd in the league, both ahead and behind several people who did not play 162 games.

 

This whole thread reads like a bad FJM article.

Edited April 18, 2008 by UMFan83

[USSoccer]

00101 0011001010010 0110001?

 

0100110101!

[sneakypower]

hmm i thought i made a coherent counter argument but everyone seemed to gloss over it

[UMFan83]

hmm i thought i made a coherent counter argument but everyone seemed to gloss over it

 

I don't think there is a lot of logic that "small ball" helped them against other team's aces. The bottom line is that they weren't a small ball team. They hit 200 HRs and Podsednik's effect on the team was greatly exaggerated as he was only a medicore player for the White Sox.

[bukie]

At this point, I don't think there is further information on either side that will change anybody else's mind.

 

The argument that Podsednik was an offensive spark and did all the little things is completely unquantifiable and subjective, even if it is true.

 

The argument that the World Series win and the Podsednik trade were two independent coincidences has already been completely supported with every type of statistic available (apparently ERA and HR are sabermetric stats now, who knew?), and if that doesn't convince anybody otherwise, pointless bickering won't either.

[SouthSideRyan]

The White Sox needed a Lead Off Hitter

 

This is true, if you just left the lineup card blank in the 1 spot and took an out every time that spot came up it would hurt the team.

 

It's a lost agrument with these guys ELCABALLO45.

 

I feel sorry for some of you. I think you have been sitting behind your computers for so long you have forgotten that baseball is actually played by human beings and not by a sabermetric computer.

 

Enjoy the season!

 

You forgot about my mother's basement!!

[sneakypower]

there is more than one way to score a run, and win ballgames.

 

but the posters in this thread exhibit so much unbridled arrogance and pomposity that they must be authorities on the matter. no point in having any discussion on the topic, really...

[UMFan83]

there is more than one way to score a run, and win ballgames.

 

but the posters in this thread exhibit so much unbridled arrogance and pomposity that they must be authorities on the matter. no point in having any discussion on the topic, really...

 

I'm not trying to be arrogant or pompous, but both the logic and the numbers clearly point in our direction. Now if the example was less lopsided, intangibles such as the ones you proposed could be considered. But Carlos Lee is probably 20 times more productive of a hitter as Podsednik so theres really no place for discussion in this instance.

 

That said, I don't like how people on this board get offended by discussion. Not picking on you necessarily, but people in threads like this whose sides aren't shared by the majority. Yes sometimes people get pompous and arrogant, but even when people aren't being that way, the side in the minority always gets offended because he can't convince anyone of his side. But most discussions are like that. I believe one thing, you believe another. No matter how many facts and logic you throw out there, you aren't going to convince a strong pro-choice person that pro-life is the way to go. That doesn't mean the discussion isn't enjoyable or beneficial. It's just a discussion.

[bukie]

There is only one way to win a ballgame, and that is to score more runs than your opponent.

 

This means that the run production of your offense against the opponent's pitching and defense has to surpass the run production of your opponent's offense against your pitching and defense.

 

The White Sox excelled in 2005 because their pitching/defense was the best in the league, by a wide margin. Statistics show that every single pitcher on their roster was better than average, and they prevented runs better than anyone. On the flip side, statistics show their offensive run production was slightly below average, and it was only even that high because of their average slugging percentage and above-average HR count. Their ability to get on base was near the bottom of the league.

 

So, then, to suggest that one Scott Podsednik was the catalyst to the White Sox winning the World Series flies completely in the face of objectivity, since he did nothing well that the White Sox actually excelled in. He did not pitch, and he did not hit home runs (aside from one in the World Series). The White Sox were offensively worse with him in the lineup than they were with Carlos Lee in the lineup. They had a lower OBP, a lower SLG, scored fewer runs, hit fewer HRs. They only things that the offense did better with Podsednik were to steal bases and get caught stealing bases.

 

If stealing a base 67% (instead of 60% in 2004) of the time was able to overcome all the other offensive deficiencies the White Sox had, then yes, Scott Podsednik was the catalyst.

 

EDIT: Correction, there are two ways to win a ballgame. The other team could forfeit.

[BigSlick]

there is more than one way to score a run, and win ballgames.

 

but the posters in this thread exhibit so much unbridled arrogance and pomposity that they must be authorities on the matter. no point in having any discussion on the topic, really...

There are definitely more than one way to score a run. You could get on, get bunted over, steal third and score on a sac fly. The traditional baseball fans love that stuff

 

Unfortunately its not as efficient or easy to do then just letting most players swing away in nearly every situation.

 

Similarly, stealing is a traditionally overrated skill because getting caught stealing is magnitudes worse for a team than swiping a base. When you think about it, that should be conventional wisdom, getting 1 spot further on the basepaths is definitely not equal to getting out (its not even worth it when you can do it 3 times for every time you get out, or its just about break even) when you're goal is to eventually score. ]

 

You could also yell at the pitcher and ask him to throw you a fastball, it might work too, but its definitely not going to be as easy as playing the game.

[sneakypower]

both the logic and the numbers clearly point in our direction.

They were 35-19 in 1-run games and outproduced their expected W-L by 8 games. That indicates to me they excelled at fundamental play and situational hitting (and featured a strong bullpen).