Maybe the White Sox are for real.

[KenCub]

While Podsednik was not a great player for the 2005 White Sox, it did seem like he got on base every first inning for them, and then he'd steal second, get moved over by Iguchi and knocked in by Konerko, Everett or Dye. I don't have stats to back that up, I just remember that it seemed like they'd get a first inning run almost every game.

Podsednik played a role in their winning the World Series, especially with his playoff numbers, but I think the main factors (as others have mentioned) were the crazy numbers their bullpen arms put up (especially Cotts, Pollitte and Hermanson) as well as the logic-defying postseason run their starters had.

[Rob]

"this is what another couple of guys figured the right answer was"

 

that settles it you win

 

Isn't that the exact same argument that people use defending this small-ball crap?

 

"They wouldn't do it if it didn't work."

 

Puhleaze.

[Guest]

While Podsednik was not a great player for the 2005 White Sox, it did seem like he got on base every first inning for them, and then he'd steal second, get moved over by Iguchi and knocked in by Konerko, Everett or Dye. I don't have stats to back that up, I just remember that it seemed like they'd get a first inning run almost every game.

Podsednik played a role in their winning the World Series, especially with his playoff numbers, but I think the main factors (as others have mentioned) were the crazy numbers their bullpen arms put up (especially Cotts, Pollitte and Hermanson) as well as the logic-defying postseason run their starters had.

 

Podsednik had 124 PA in the first inning in 2005 and had a line of .333/.419/.417/.836 which is much better than his .290/.351/.349/.700 overall line that year. The number of runs he scored in the first inning was only 26, or about 21 percent of the time.

[KenCub]

Podsednik had 124 PA in the first inning in 2005 and had a line of .333/.419/.417/.836 which is much better than his .290/.351/.349/.700 overall line that year. The number of runs he scored in the first inning was only 26, or about 21 percent of the time.

 

Thanks for the numbers, soccer - logically I knew that it couldn't be a crazy high percentage, but it did seem like he was always on base to start the game that year.

He's still just a mediocre-at-best player when it's all said and done.

[CuseCubFan69]

Podsednik had 124 PA in the first inning in 2005 and had a line of .333/.419/.417/.836 which is much better than his .290/.351/.349/.700 overall line that year. The number of runs he scored in the first inning was only 26, or about 21 percent of the time.

 

Thanks for the numbers, soccer - logically I knew that it couldn't be a crazy high percentage, but it did seem like he was always on base to start the game that year.

He's still just a mediocre-at-best player when it's all said and done.

 

Still, having a guy leadoff the game with an OBP like that certainly is nice.

[SouthSideRyan]

Podsednik had 124 PA in the first inning in 2005 and had a line of .333/.419/.417/.836 which is much better than his .290/.351/.349/.700 overall line that year. The number of runs he scored in the first inning was only 26, or about 21 percent of the time.

 

Thanks for the numbers, soccer - logically I knew that it couldn't be a crazy high percentage, but it did seem like he was always on base to start the game that year.

He's still just a mediocre-at-best player when it's all said and done.

 

Still, having a guy leadoff the game with an OBP like that certainly is nice.

 

It is, but it's not nice that your table setter has a below average OBP the rest of the way.

[CuseCubFan69]

Podsednik had 124 PA in the first inning in 2005 and had a line of .333/.419/.417/.836 which is much better than his .290/.351/.349/.700 overall line that year. The number of runs he scored in the first inning was only 26, or about 21 percent of the time.

 

Thanks for the numbers, soccer - logically I knew that it couldn't be a crazy high percentage, but it did seem like he was always on base to start the game that year.

He's still just a mediocre-at-best player when it's all said and done.

 

Still, having a guy leadoff the game with an OBP like that certainly is nice.

 

It is, but it's not nice that your table setter has a below average OBP the rest of the way.

 

True. The first inning is a nice tone setter though and getting that first score is a good thing, along with the leadoff guy on in that inning. I wonder what the Sox record was when he scored in the first and what it was when he didn't.

[SouthSideRyan]

Podsednik had 124 PA in the first inning in 2005 and had a line of .333/.419/.417/.836 which is much better than his .290/.351/.349/.700 overall line that year. The number of runs he scored in the first inning was only 26, or about 21 percent of the time.

 

Thanks for the numbers, soccer - logically I knew that it couldn't be a crazy high percentage, but it did seem like he was always on base to start the game that year.

He's still just a mediocre-at-best player when it's all said and done.

 

Still, having a guy leadoff the game with an OBP like that certainly is nice.

 

It is, but it's not nice that your table setter has a below average OBP the rest of the way.

 

True. The first inning is a nice tone setter though and getting that first score is a good thing, along with the leadoff guy on in that inning. I wonder what the Sox record was when he scored in the first and what it was when he didn't.

 

What the hell, my boss is off today, here goes:

 

19-6 is what I came up with, though my counting skills may have been off. I'm not sure how much different that is compared to the records of any team who scores in the first. Not willing to go through those numbers.

[CuseCubFan69]

Podsednik had 124 PA in the first inning in 2005 and had a line of .333/.419/.417/.836 which is much better than his .290/.351/.349/.700 overall line that year. The number of runs he scored in the first inning was only 26, or about 21 percent of the time.

 

Thanks for the numbers, soccer - logically I knew that it couldn't be a crazy high percentage, but it did seem like he was always on base to start the game that year.

He's still just a mediocre-at-best player when it's all said and done.

 

Still, having a guy leadoff the game with an OBP like that certainly is nice.

 

It is, but it's not nice that your table setter has a below average OBP the rest of the way.

 

True. The first inning is a nice tone setter though and getting that first score is a good thing, along with the leadoff guy on in that inning. I wonder what the Sox record was when he scored in the first and what it was when he didn't.

 

What the hell, my boss is off today, here goes:

 

19-6 is what I came up with, though my counting skills may have been off. I'm not sure how much different that is compared to the records of any team who scores in the first. Not willing to go through those numbers.

 

Probably not and thanks. Playing 760 ball certainly is nice.

[KenCub]

Still, having a guy leadoff the game with an OBP like that certainly is nice.

 

Absolutely. It gets their starter in the stretch right away, it makes him waste energy throwing over to first, it can lead to the 2-hitter seeing better pitches because their starter rushes his pitches to give the catcher a chance on an attempted steal, it can up the pitch count early, which gets you into their bullpen sooner.

 

Nothing bad can come of your leadoff guy getting on base. [/Capt. Obvious] :D

[Garage Party]

Whenever Nick Swisher wants to stop dancing around in left field, pointing at people and yelling "YEEEEEEEEAAAAAH EXTREME SPORTSSSSSSS" or whatever, that'd be great.

[chuckywang]

Whenever Nick Swisher wants to stop dancing around in left field, pointing at people and yelling "YEEEEEEEEAAAAAH EXTREME SPORTSSSSSSS" or whatever, that'd be great.

 

He's quite a character. I actually find him hilarious.

[CubRock2]

Let's see how many arguments he wants to come over here and start when the white sox are 20 games under .500 in august.

 

Ooops....

 

:thumbsup:

[BigSlick]

I don't know if their acquisition of Griffey makes them better or worse

 

He's not what he once was defensively or offensively, and they will play him in CF. They might have gotten the same production from Brian Anderson if they showed any dedication to him.

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe the White Sox have actually secretly come up with an elaborate sort of time swap and they're going to end up with Junior and Thome from a decade ago.

 

Fortunately, they also end up with young Hawk as the GM again. FAILURE.

[imb]

Let's see how many arguments he wants to come over here and start when the white sox are 20 games under .500 in august.

 

Ooops....

 

:thumbsup:

 

still plenty of games left in august

[UMFan83]

The media is eating this up like its such a big story. Griffey is washed up and not good. All that's left for him is his name. Why is this even leading off news shows?

[jiml60]

The media is eating this up like its such a big story. Griffey is washed up and not good. All that's left for him is his name. Why is this even leading off news shows?

 

Your third sentence answers your question.