Furcal or Pierre?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

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.

 

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.

 

There you go.

Edited November 2, 2005 by Meat&PotatoesMan

[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.

 

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.

 

again better offense does not mean a more balanced offense. they were a much more balanced team in 05 imo.

[mg420]

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.

 

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.

 

There you go.

 

this is amazing. if you cant see the difference in between "the sox's success was due to scott" and "that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success" then i guess you win.

[David]

You're right... and I'll take better over "more balanced" every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

[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.

 

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.

 

it's called SB%. :wink:

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

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.

 

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.

 

There you go.

 

this is amazing. if you cant see the difference in between "the sox's success was due to scott" and "that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success" then i guess you win.

 

That's nice. I didn't say that. Whatever. Enjoy ignorance.

[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.

 

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.

 

Moving a runner, stealing, and all those "little things" are done in an effort to score more runs. Ultimately, you're trying to score runs. You cannot argue that a team with a better on-base percentage and slugging percentage isn't going to score more runs than one deficient in these categories, even if that second team is better at the "little things."

 

More runs (especially over 100 more runs) = a better offense and a much greater chance of winning. All this situational nonsense means nothing when you get down to the bottom line of runs scored and wins.

[E.J.]

Scott Podsednik scored 80 runs this past year, which put him 68th in MLB in this category. Doesn't seem that great to me.

[David]

[rant]...What frustrates me even more is the fact that people want to pin the failures of the Cub offense to failings in all these "little things" like moving a runner over, hit and runs, situational hitting and all that nonsense. Too many sluggers, they say.

 

NO. If we had a lineup full of Derrek Lee's or Aramis's, offense would not be a problem. The problem is the Neifi Perezes, Jose Maciases and Corey Pattersons.. and the problem is exacerbated by them hitting in the top two spots in the lineup. NOT because we need a so-called leadoff man up there, but because they are getting the most at bats out of anybody on the team when they are hitting there.

 

We DON'T need "gritty, scrappy" players. We DON'T need "clutch hitters." These labels mean NOTHING. What we need are hitters who get ON BASE consistently and WORK the count. More baserunners and tired pitchers will inevitably lead to more runs and more wins.

 

[/rant]

Edited November 2, 2005 by David

[BigbadB]

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.

 

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.

 

There you go.

 

this is amazing. if you cant see the difference in between "the sox's success was due to scott" and "that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success" then i guess you win.

 

That's nice. I didn't say that. Whatever. Enjoy ignorance.

 

"Enjoy ignorance" does not support your argument. If that's the best you can do, maybe you should refrain from arguing.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You're right... and I'll take better over "more balanced" every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

 

Again, when I checked earlier in the year, the White Sox didn't score runs any more consistently than the Cubs. So they're scoring fewer runs, and they aren't being any more consistent than the Cubs's up and down offense. What's the benefit?

[David]

You're right... and I'll take better over "more balanced" every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

 

Again, when I checked earlier in the year, the White Sox didn't score runs any more consistently than the Cubs. So they're scoring fewer runs, and they aren't being any more consistent than the Cubs's up and down offense. What's the benefit?

 

You'll get no argument from me.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

You're right... and I'll take better over "more balanced" every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

 

Again, when I checked earlier in the year, the White Sox didn't score runs any more consistently than the Cubs. So they're scoring fewer runs, and they aren't being any more consistent than the Cubs's up and down offense. What's the benefit?

 

But it just seems like they do...and gosh...Pods is really, really fast so that means he must be better.

[JeffH]

Did the 2005 White Sox show any pattern of scoring first a lot more often than the opposition and, if so, could that be credited to Podsednik at all?

 

Getting ahead early is a frequently underappreciated aspect of baseball.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Did the 2005 White Sox show any pattern of scoring first a lot more often than the opposition and, if so, could that be credited to Podsednik at all?

 

Getting ahead early is a frequently underappreciated aspect of baseball.

 

That I did not check. People were contending that even though they weren't much(if at all) better than the Cubs, that the ability to score consistently was the reason their offense was helping them win more. Turns out that wasn't true.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Did the 2005 White Sox show any pattern of scoring first a lot more often than the opposition and, if so, could that be credited to Podsednik at all?

 

Getting ahead early is a frequently underappreciated aspect of baseball.

 

That I did not check. People were contending that even though they weren't much(if at all) better than the Cubs, that the ability to score consistently was the reason their offense was helping them win more. Turns out that wasn't true.

 

there's the good old expected wins matrix on BP.

[scs_paradise]

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.

 

isn't it true that while stat analysis can indicate trends it does nothing for an indiviual game. so while you can predict that a coin flipped 100 times will come up 50/50 with a standard deviation, it does not indicate what the next flip will be?

 

If so, stats are great for looking at the totals and making it say what you want it to say but it does nothing for that one game where you need Pods to steal second, be bunted over to third and score on a sac fly?

[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.

 

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.

 

isn't it true that while stat analysis can indicate trends it does nothing for an indiviual game. so while you can predict that a coin flipped 100 times will come up 50/50 with a standard deviation, it does not indicate what the next flip will be?

 

If so, stats are great for looking at the totals and making it say what you want it to say but it does nothing for that one game where you need Pods to steal second, be bunted over to third and score on a sac fly?

 

there are probabilities for every state in a ballgame.

[gflore34]

Did the 2005 White Sox show any pattern of scoring first a lot more often than the opposition and, if so, could that be credited to Podsednik at all?

 

Getting ahead early is a frequently underappreciated aspect of baseball.

 

That I did not check. People were contending that even though they weren't much(if at all) better than the Cubs, that the ability to score consistently was the reason their offense was helping them win more. Turns out that wasn't true.

 

there's the good old expected wins matrix on BP.

 

Pitching and defense was the key to the 2005 White Sox success, Hawk Harrelson can shawk all he wishes about Pods' impact. But, without Garland having a career year, the bullpen pitching out of its collective minds, etc. none of the 2005 White Season would have happened Pods or no Pods.

[tgk]

I'll take Furcal, simply because it's now two years later and I can still hear Pierre rapping, "And we went to Wrigley Field, and got that Wiggley feel." :puker:

 

But Seriously, I'd have to go with Pierre. Several Reasons:

1. Weak SS class, Furcal will be overpaid.

2. Pierre shouldn't cost all that much to acquire if the rumors of Florida wanting to move his salary are true. Just eat the salary and give them a list of B prospects to choose from that doesn't include left-handed pitchers.

3. With Pierre in Center, you can keep Walker at 2nd and play Cedeno at short. If you sign Furcal, Walker has to go.

4. Leaves Hendry with a pile of money ($25 or so) to throw at Giles (or take on another large contract in trade) and still afford Burnett, who it appears is high on the list. (In fact, if I have to overpay for someone, I overpay for Giles, throwing an extra mil or two above what anyone else will pay per year to get a two-year deal with a reasonable option/buyout in 2008. I know, nobody Front loads contracts, but it makes sense as we've got the salary space now, no need to cause budget problems later. Say something like 12, 11, 7)

 

That would leave you with a line-up of:

 

Pierre

Walker

Lee

Giles (or Mystery RF)

Ramirez

Barrett

Murton

Cedeno

 

I could live with that. Hendry should still have enough left over to bring in a bat at the deadline if Murton and/or Cedeno aren't producing.

 

5. As stated before, Pierre is gone in a year. Gives Pie the luxury of having another year at AA to AAA and be ready to compete for the job in '07.

 

6. I no longer believe Patterson can be successful in Chicago. Trade him to the Mariners or somewhere else that we'll never have to see him and maybe he can realize his potential. Maybe we can get a bullpen arm for him.

 

Oh well, doesn't really matter as I'm not running the team, but it beats working.

 

Now, if I could just get that stupid song out of my head. :wall:

[rocket]

3. With Pierre in Center, you can keep Walker at 2nd and play Cedeno at short. If you sign Furcal, Walker has to go.

 

Why?

[treebird]

[rant]...What frustrates me even more is the fact that people want to pin the failures of the Cub offense to failings in all these "little things" like moving a runner over, hit and runs, situational hitting and all that nonsense. Too many sluggers, they say.

 

NO. If we had a lineup full of Derrek Lee's or Aramis's, offense would not be a problem. The problem is the Neifi Perezes, Jose Maciases and Corey Pattersons.. and the problem is exacerbated by them hitting in the top two spots in the lineup. NOT because we need a so-called leadoff man up there, but because they are getting the most at bats out of anybody on the team when they are hitting there.

 

We DON'T need "gritty, scrappy" players. We DON'T need "clutch hitters." These labels mean NOTHING. What we need are hitters who get ON BASE consistently and WORK the count. More baserunners and tired pitchers will inevitably lead to more runs and more wins.

 

[/rant]

 

exactly. there's a reason the little things are called the little things and the big things are called the big things.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

3. With Pierre in Center, you can keep Walker at 2nd and play Cedeno at short. If you sign Furcal, Walker has to go.

 

Why?

 

b/c Walker can't turn the DP with a drunk. :lol:

[rawaction]

Furcal is a better SS than Pierre is a CF, in all aspects of the game. The Cubs have far fewer options coming thru the system at SS (Cedeno is about it) than they do in CF. And CF's are much easy to find thru free agency.

[RynoRules]

I don't think people on this bd should be faulted for wanting to emulate the Sox simply b/c many of us think their methedology was flawed. The Sox accomplished the goal - they won, and they won huge, nearly sweeping through the postseason. Based on stats alone, that never should have happended. Thus, it is fair to say that stats alone "do not a champion-maketh".

 

The reason people want to emulate the Sox is b/c they won. That's not completely misguided, as some of you seem to be alleging.[/b]