Furcal or Pierre?

[burnt out cubbie fan]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

So wait....paying 6 million plus whatever prospects it takes to get him for 1 year isn't overpaying for Pierre?

[JC]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

So wait....paying 6 million plus whatever prospects it takes to get him for 1 year isn't overpaying for Pierre?

 

No.

 

Its grossly overpaying.

[mg420]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

[mg420]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

So wait....paying 6 million plus whatever prospects it takes to get him for 1 year isn't overpaying for Pierre?

it probably is overpaying but its only 6 for 1 year not 8+ for 4 years.

[David]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

It did make a difference. They scored less runs.

 

Of course, the pitching was good enough to win well over 90 games...

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

omg. you can't seriously believe that. you're reasoning from the final result and saying that everything they did (including having scotty pod) contributed to success. that isn't even logical.

[mg420]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

It did make a difference. They scored less runs.

 

Of course, the pitching was good enough to win well over 90 games...

 

maybe its not how many runs you score but when you score them. of course they had great pitching but having a leadoff guy who can get on base and steal was more important to their offense than having carlos lee who drove in a ton of runs. it is a question of a balanced lineup imo.

[mg420]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

omg. you can't seriously believe that. you're reasoning from the final result and saying that everything they did (including having scotty pod) contributed to success. that isn't even logical.

 

show me where i said "everything"? huge difference does not equal everything.

[CUBZ99]

I'll take both for a year anyday. I'm sure DLEE and Aram wouldn't mind having a couple guys that get on base ahead of them.

[David]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

It did make a difference. They scored less runs.

 

Of course, the pitching was good enough to win well over 90 games...

 

maybe its not how many runs you score but when you score them. of course they had great pitching but having a leadoff guy who can get on base and steal was more important to their offense than having carlos lee who drove in a ton of runs. it is a question of a balanced lineup imo.

 

I happen to believe that their success had a lot more to do with their team ERA going from 4.91 to 3.61, than their runs scored going from 865 to 741. But that's just me.

 

The Sox didn't win because they weakened their lineup, they won because their pitching was great.

 

EDIT - just for fun, had the Sox offense from 2004 been combined with the Sox pitching from 2005, they would've had a pythagorean win total of around 104.

[CUBZ99]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

It did make a difference. They scored less runs.

 

Of course, the pitching was good enough to win well over 90 games...

 

maybe its not how many runs you score but when you score them. of course they had great pitching but having a leadoff guy who can get on base and steal was more important to their offense than having carlos lee who drove in a ton of runs. it is a question of a balanced lineup imo.

 

I happen to believe that their success had a lot more to do with their team ERA going from 4.91 to 3.61, than their runs scored going from 865 to 741. But that's just me.

 

The Sox didn't win because they weakened their lineup, they won because their pitching was great.

 

You still have to score to win and imo a guy who gets on base at a .350 clip right off the bat is in no way shape or form a negative to the offense.

[David]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

It did make a difference. They scored less runs.

 

Of course, the pitching was good enough to win well over 90 games...

 

maybe its not how many runs you score but when you score them. of course they had great pitching but having a leadoff guy who can get on base and steal was more important to their offense than having carlos lee who drove in a ton of runs. it is a question of a balanced lineup imo.

 

I happen to believe that their success had a lot more to do with their team ERA going from 4.91 to 3.61, than their runs scored going from 865 to 741. But that's just me.

 

The Sox didn't win because they weakened their lineup, they won because their pitching was great.

 

You still have to score to win and imo a guy who gets on base at a .350 clip right off the bat is in no way shape or form a negative to the offense.

 

It is when he's replacing a guy who got on base at a .366 clip (and slugged .525).

[CUBZ99]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

It did make a difference. They scored less runs.

 

Of course, the pitching was good enough to win well over 90 games...

 

maybe its not how many runs you score but when you score them. of course they had great pitching but having a leadoff guy who can get on base and steal was more important to their offense than having carlos lee who drove in a ton of runs. it is a question of a balanced lineup imo.

 

I happen to believe that their success had a lot more to do with their team ERA going from 4.91 to 3.61, than their runs scored going from 865 to 741. But that's just me.

 

The Sox didn't win because they weakened their lineup, they won because their pitching was great.

 

You still have to score to win and imo a guy who gets on base at a .350 clip right off the bat is in no way shape or form a negative to the offense.

 

It is when he's replacing a guy who got on base at a .366 clip (and slugged .525).

 

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

omg. you can't seriously believe that. you're reasoning from the final result and saying that everything they did (including having scotty pod) contributed to success. that isn't even logical.

 

show me where i said "everything"? huge difference does not equal everything.

 

you said the white sox success was due to scott, with no justification other than he was part of the 2005 WS team. logically, that means everything that composed the '05 team was also the reason they won, which is ridiculous.

[David]

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

 

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

[E.J.]

I can't believe people actually believe that Podsednik made the White Sox offense better. They scored less runs this year compared to last year people. They didn't win the World Series because of their offense. They won despite it because they had unbelievable good pitching. And when their pitching struggled they almost blew their 15-game lead in the division because their pathetic offense couldn't bail them out.

 

The White Sox were in the lower half of the AL in runs scored and near the bottom in team BA and OBP. They did not have a good offense.

[mg420]

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

 

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

 

so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense.

[mg420]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

omg. you can't seriously believe that. you're reasoning from the final result and saying that everything they did (including having scotty pod) contributed to success. that isn't even logical.

 

show me where i said "everything"? huge difference does not equal everything.

 

you said the white sox success was due to scott, with no justification other than he was part of the 2005 WS team. logically, that means everything that composed the '05 team was also the reason they won, which is ridiculous.

 

again, show me where i said the sox's success was due to scott? i said he made a huge difference in the offense. you speak of logic yet you do not speak logically.

[mg420]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

omg. you can't seriously believe that. you're reasoning from the final result and saying that everything they did (including having scotty pod) contributed to success. that isn't even logical.

 

show me where i said "everything"? huge difference does not equal everything.

 

you said the white sox success was due to scott, with no justification other than he was part of the 2005 WS team. logically, that means everything that composed the '05 team was also the reason they won, which is ridiculous.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

 

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

 

so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense.

 

...just about as much effect as getting caught 23 times.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

 

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

 

so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense.

 

They still didn't help them equal their run total from 2004.

 

The Sox did not win because of their offense which was worse in 2005 than in 2004. They won because of their pitching and luck in one run games.

[David]

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

 

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

 

so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense.

 

Nope. It helped. His 59/82 (72%, is that even past the break-even point?) steals helped them score 124 fewer runs.

 

If you think the Sox lineup was somehow better in 2005 than in 2004 because of the changes made in the offseason, I've got some swampland you might be interested in acquiring.

[mg420]

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

 

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

 

so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense.

 

...just about as much effect as getting caught 23 times.

 

you are right. everyone should have 100 sb's and never get caught. 60 sb's is just pathetic (even though it's probably more than the whole cubs team had last year). i should know better than to argue with such sound reasoning.

[David]

i would rather see pierre. look what scott pod did for the sox in 2005 and i expect similar things from juan if the cubs trade for him. pierre had an off year in 05 (similar to s pod in 04) so i see no reason why he cant return to his .750 ops with 50 sb year form. whoever signs furcal will probably way overpay (in years & $) anyway and 1 year of pierre will allow cedeno to start at ss in 06 & perhaps pie in cf in 07.

 

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

 

so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you.

 

omg. you can't seriously believe that. you're reasoning from the final result and saying that everything they did (including having scotty pod) contributed to success. that isn't even logical.

 

show me where i said "everything"? huge difference does not equal everything.

 

you said the white sox success was due to scott, with no justification other than he was part of the 2005 WS team. logically, that means everything that composed the '05 team was also the reason they won, which is ridiculous.

 

again, show me where i said the sox's success was due to scott? i said he made a huge difference in the offense. you speak of logic yet you do not speak logically.

 

Yes, he did make a huge difference. Exchanging Carlos Lee for Scott Podsenik made the Sox offense a LOT worse.

[LuvChicagoSports]

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

 

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

 

It's not that simple. Lineup position is relevant and so is baserunning ability. In late inning games, you need to be able to get guys on and move them over. People with great baserunning ability can steal, score from first, go first to third, and all the little things. You cannot simply look only at the statistical numbers. I believe if you asked Kenny Williams or Ozzie Guillen they would greatly disagree with you that getting Scott made the offense worse. It just made it different. Lost a bopper but gained a catalyst. Looking at purely numbers can be decieving. It's important to have a balanced lineup.