Snippet from Dayn Perry Article

[Geech]

You, sir, only care about stats. I don't think you see anything else. If you asked players on the Sox they'll tell you that Podsednik and Iguchi set the tone for the rest of the order day in and day out. I don't even know what the hell VORP is, no do I care. No one cares. People only care about winning, and Podsednik, unarguably, helped that team win. What you are failing to grasp through your statistical rantings is that you can twist numbers to suit whatever point you're trying to make, don't you pay attention to politics? Man, lay off the numbers pal - and look at the PLAYERS.

 

Awesome.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

You, sir, only care about stats. I don't think you see anything else. If you asked players on the Sox they'll tell you that Podsednik and Iguchi set the tone for the rest of the order day in and day out. I don't even know what the hell VORP is, no do I care. No one cares. People only care about winning, and Podsednik, unarguably, helped that team win. What you are failing to grasp through your statistical rantings is that you can twist numbers to suit whatever point you're trying to make, don't you pay attention to politics? Man, lay off the numbers pal - and look at the PLAYERS.

 

Although at times I think people can take saber numbers a tad too literal, I think stats can be a useful tool to help weed out human biases.

 

One other thing, you should learn\care what VORP is if only to point out its flaws.

Edited November 24, 2005 by CardsFanInChiTown

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Dayn Perry is horrible. I hate his columns. He is Foxsports version of Phil Rogers.

 

I totally disagree for one simple reason - Perry doesn't take himself 1/10 as seriously as Rogers takes himself. Perry also is pretty smart, I definately don't think he's some sort of goon.

Whoever had that Podsednik comment, you're a hypocrite. About 99.999999% of us advocated that Lee for Podsednik trade.

 

[-( Podsednik sucks. Thanks to people like Joe Morgan and Co., some individuals actually think he's good.

 

He doesn't "suck" anymore than Hendry is a "moran". He is overrated in terms of being labled an All-Star, just like Hendry has made some good moves, and some not-so-good moves.

 

Podsednik ranked 14/21 in OBP, 21/21 (dead last) in SLG, and dead last in OPS last year among qualified AL left fielders. He had a 72 SB% which is just above the break even mark. He ranked 10/14 in VORP among AL LF with 400+ PA. He sucks.

 

You, sir, only care about stats. I don't think you see anything else. If you asked players on the Sox they'll tell you that Podsednik and Iguchi set the tone for the rest of the order day in and day out. I don't even know what the hell VORP is, no do I care. No one cares. People only care about winning, and Podsednik, unarguably, helped that team win. What you are failing to grasp through your statistical rantings is that you can twist numbers to suit whatever point you're trying to make, don't you pay attention to politics? Man, lay off the numbers pal - and look at the PLAYERS.

 

You, sir, are afraid of new ideas like applying statistics to baseball b/c it would actually make you think. I do look beyond the numbers. They only tell part of the story. However, I'm not closeminded enough to ignore evidence, whether it is in numerical format or not.

 

People say you can twist stats to say what you want, but that is b/c most people are too dense to understand what is being said. Educate yourself.

[fearthecubs]

 

One other thing, you should learn\care what VORP is if only to point out its flaws.

 

Point well taken

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Dayn Perry is horrible. I hate his columns. He is Foxsports version of Phil Rogers.

 

I totally disagree for one simple reason - Perry doesn't take himself 1/10 as seriously as Rogers takes himself. Perry also is pretty smart, I definately don't think he's some sort of goon.

Whoever had that Podsednik comment, you're a hypocrite. About 99.999999% of us advocated that Lee for Podsednik trade.

 

[-( Podsednik sucks. Thanks to people like Joe Morgan and Co., some individuals actually think he's good.

 

He doesn't "suck" anymore than Hendry is a "moran". He is overrated in terms of being labled an All-Star, just like Hendry has made some good moves, and some not-so-good moves.

 

Podsednik ranked 14/21 in OBP, 21/21 (dead last) in SLG, and dead last in OPS last year among qualified AL left fielders. He had a 72 SB% which is just above the break even mark. He ranked 10/14 in VORP among AL LF with 400+ PA. He sucks.

 

It's really not fair to call him a left fielder - his true position is CF, the Sox have just misused him.

 

Fair enough. He would rank 8/10 for qualified AL CF in OPS, 3/10 in OBP (nice), 10/10 in SLG. He'd also rank 10/14 in VORP among AL CF w/ 400+ PA.

 

As a CF, his OBP is a solid addition to his team. Putting him in LF just throws that away, especially since you can easily get more production out of LF than CF looking at the player pool.

[fearthecubs]

 

People say you can twist stats to say what you want, but that is b/c most people are too dense to understand what is being said. Educate yourself.

 

So you're implying I'm stupid? Well I'm not implying you want it, but you'll never earn my respect saying stuff like that. People will disagree with you pretty much every day in the workplace, etc., you better get used to it.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

 

People say you can twist stats to say what you want, but that is b/c most people are too dense to understand what is being said. Educate yourself.

 

So you're implying I'm stupid? Well I'm not implying you want it, but you'll never earn my respect saying stuff like that. People will disagree with you pretty much every day in the workplace, etc., you better get used to it.

 

I'm not implying anything. It is a general statement. You made it pretty clear that you are not interested in looking at the statistical side of baseball. I find that attitude to be ignorant in many respects. It's like the caveman throwing a fit b/c the round wheel wasn't what he used before. Stick with that square wheel.

 

I'm not attacking you. I'm disagreeing with your approach. You can get all bent out of shape about it, but that doesn't help advance your idea. Where have you attempted to argue, with actual evidence, against the use of stats? No where that i've seen. You just throw out unsubstantiated opinions and get mad when people don't agree.

[Flames24Rulz]

ok, so Podsednik doesn't hit homers. Big deal. We've had teams on the North Side the last few years who live and die by the long ball. That got us real far in 2004 and 2005 :roll:

[UK1679666180]

ok, so Podsednik doesn't hit homers. Big deal. We've had teams on the North Side the last few years who live and die by the long ball. That got us real far in 2004 and 2005 :roll:

 

I was impressed with what Lee and Ramirez did, before the Ramirez injury they were just as good if not more productive than Ramirez and Ortiz in Boston.

 

You don't have to have power in all 8 spots, but those who don't have power damn sure have to know how to get to 1B without having to walk back to dugout right after reaching it (OBP).

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

ok, so Podsednik doesn't hit homers. Big deal. We've had teams on the North Side the last few years who live and die by the long ball. That got us real far in 2004 and 2005 :roll:

 

Would living by the long ball be so bad if you had decent OBP on your team? The A's are proof that station to station baseball wins games. Sit and wait for the 3 run jack.

 

Are you implying that small ball produces more offense?

 

As far as 2004 goes, I'd put failing to make the playoffs on Hawkins, Dusty, and the choke artists down the stretch. 2005's disaster wasn't a result of living and dying by the long ball. you can blame it on a lot of things like lack of OBP, injuries, Dusty, a shaky pen,... can you give me some examples of how living and dying by the long ball hurt us?

 

did Cincy live and die by the long ball last year? how effective was their offense?

[fearthecubs]

 

People say you can twist stats to say what you want, but that is b/c most people are too dense to understand what is being said. Educate yourself.

 

So you're implying I'm stupid? Well I'm not implying you want it, but you'll never earn my respect saying stuff like that. People will disagree with you pretty much every day in the workplace, etc., you better get used to it.

 

I'm not implying anything. It is a general statement. You made it pretty clear that you are not interested in looking at the statistical side of baseball. I find that attitude to be ignorant in many respects. It's like the caveman throwing a fit b/c the round wheel wasn't what he used before. Stick with that square wheel.

 

I'm not attacking you. I'm disagreeing with your approach. You can get all bent out of shape about it, but that doesn't help advance your idea. Where have you attempted to argue, with actual evidence, against the use of stats? No where that i've seen. You just throw out unsubstantiated opinions and get mad when people don't agree.

 

I still think you owe me an apology, but whatever.

 

I do care about stats, I've said in a few other threads I find great importance in OBP. Another stat I think isn't used enough is WHIP for pitching. I guess my point isn't that VORP or whatever isn't useful, I highly doubt any GM in professional baseball uses it to weigh making a deal. It's a fun hobby, and predicting transactions is what this forum is for, but I don't think it ever carries over to the real world. I really cant even see Theo sitting at his desk musing "Hmm, let's go with Player A due to his filthy VORP rating."

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

 

People say you can twist stats to say what you want, but that is b/c most people are too dense to understand what is being said. Educate yourself.

 

So you're implying I'm stupid? Well I'm not implying you want it, but you'll never earn my respect saying stuff like that. People will disagree with you pretty much every day in the workplace, etc., you better get used to it.

 

I'm not implying anything. It is a general statement. You made it pretty clear that you are not interested in looking at the statistical side of baseball. I find that attitude to be ignorant in many respects. It's like the caveman throwing a fit b/c the round wheel wasn't what he used before. Stick with that square wheel.

 

I'm not attacking you. I'm disagreeing with your approach. You can get all bent out of shape about it, but that doesn't help advance your idea. Where have you attempted to argue, with actual evidence, against the use of stats? No where that i've seen. You just throw out unsubstantiated opinions and get mad when people don't agree.

 

I still think you owe me an apology, but whatever.

 

I do care about stats, I've said in a few other threads I find great importance in OBP. Another stat I think isn't used enough is WHIP for pitching. I guess my point isn't that VORP or whatever isn't useful, I highly doubt any GM in professional baseball uses it to weigh making a deal. It's a fun hobby, and predicting transactions is what this forum is for, but I don't think it ever carries over to the real world. I really cant even see Theo sitting at his desk musing "Hmm, let's go with Player A due to his filthy VORP rating."

 

JP Riccardi and Beane use VORP (they probably use their own in house stats with greater reliability). Actually Theo was a stats guy, although he didn't just dismiss scouts' opinions like Beane does, who is completely a numbers guy.

 

Stats do carry over into the real world. how is it that stats can be used in just about every aspect of life with great effect (realizing that they do have limitations) but can't find traction in baseball? the good ol' boys don't like it. i have yet to see a convincing argument as to why stats shouldn't be used that doesn't boil down to "this is the way we've always done it and it works fine." at the very least they should be used to complement the old school approach to baseball.

[SeldomSeen]

 

People say you can twist stats to say what you want, but that is b/c most people are too dense to understand what is being said. Educate yourself.

 

So you're implying I'm stupid? Well I'm not implying you want it, but you'll never earn my respect saying stuff like that. People will disagree with you pretty much every day in the workplace, etc., you better get used to it.

 

I'm not implying anything. It is a general statement. You made it pretty clear that you are not interested in looking at the statistical side of baseball. I find that attitude to be ignorant in many respects. It's like the caveman throwing a fit b/c the round wheel wasn't what he used before. Stick with that square wheel.

 

I'm not attacking you. I'm disagreeing with your approach. You can get all bent out of shape about it, but that doesn't help advance your idea. Where have you attempted to argue, with actual evidence, against the use of stats? No where that i've seen. You just throw out unsubstantiated opinions and get mad when people don't agree.

 

I still think you owe me an apology, but whatever.

 

I do care about stats, I've said in a few other threads I find great importance in OBP. Another stat I think isn't used enough is WHIP for pitching. I guess my point isn't that VORP or whatever isn't useful, I highly doubt any GM in professional baseball uses it to weigh making a deal. It's a fun hobby, and predicting transactions is what this forum is for, but I don't think it ever carries over to the real world. I really cant even see Theo sitting at his desk musing "Hmm, let's go with Player A due to his filthy VORP rating."

 

JP Riccardi and Beane use VORP (they probably use their own in house stats with greater reliability). Actually Theo was a stats guy, although he didn't just dismiss scouts' opinions like Beane does, who is completely a numbers guy.

 

Stats do carry over into the real world. how is it that stats can be used in just about every aspect of life with great effect (realizing that they do have limitations) but can't find traction in baseball? the good ol' boys don't like it. i have yet to see a convincing argument as to why stats shouldn't be used that doesn't boil down to "this is the way we've always done it and it works fine." at the very least they should be used to complement the old school approach to baseball.

Absolutely the truth, but to color everyone who doesn't live and breathe VORP an ignorant caveman is counterproductive to your argument. Often, the stats guys appear to be fighting a holy war, or trying to prove themselves right moreso than trying to improve baseball teams.

Just my 2 cents.

[fearthecubs]

at the very least they should be used to complement the old school approach to baseball.

 

You got it right in that specific statement, stick with that. They should be used as a compliment; denying that Podsednik was nothing short of a critical part of a World Series team is pretty crazy IMHO.

[RynoRules]

ok, so Podsednik doesn't hit homers. Big deal. We've had teams on the North Side the last few years who live and die by the long ball. That got us real far in 2004 and 2005 :roll:

 

Would living by the long ball be so bad if you had decent OBP on your team? The A's are proof that station to station baseball wins games. Sit and wait for the 3 run jack.

 

Are you implying that small ball produces more offense?

 

As far as 2004 goes, I'd put failing to make the playoffs on Hawkins, Dusty, and the choke artists down the stretch. 2005's disaster wasn't a result of living and dying by the long ball. you can blame it on a lot of things like lack of OBP, injuries, Dusty, a shaky pen,... can you give me some examples of how living and dying by the long ball hurt us?did Cincy live and die by the long ball last year? how effective was their offense?

 

Yes, I can: 2004 and 2005...and 1998...and wait I'll think of a few more...

This franchise, for whatever reason, has always been fascinated by the longball to the exclusion of more important things.

 

This convo began by my pointing out that Posednik does not suck. To say that he does is a gross overstatement.

[fearthecubs]

This convo began by my pointing out that Posednik does not suck. To say that he does is a gross overstatement.

 

Word.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

at the very least they should be used to complement the old school approach to baseball.

 

You got it right in that specific statement, stick with that. They should be used as a compliment; denying that Podsednik was nothing short of a critical part of a World Series team is pretty crazy IMHO.

 

it wouldn't be so crazy if anyone could justify that characterization of Podsednik's '05 contributions. reasoning that a team was successful and therefore implies that Podsednik was a critical component isn't logical.

[J.R.]

I highly doubt any GM in professional baseball uses it to weigh making a deal.

 

I highly doubt that our GM uses it to weigh making a deal.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

ok, so Podsednik doesn't hit homers. Big deal. We've had teams on the North Side the last few years who live and die by the long ball. That got us real far in 2004 and 2005 :roll:

 

Would living by the long ball be so bad if you had decent OBP on your team? The A's are proof that station to station baseball wins games. Sit and wait for the 3 run jack.

 

Are you implying that small ball produces more offense?

 

As far as 2004 goes, I'd put failing to make the playoffs on Hawkins, Dusty, and the choke artists down the stretch. 2005's disaster wasn't a result of living and dying by the long ball. you can blame it on a lot of things like lack of OBP, injuries, Dusty, a shaky pen,... can you give me some examples of how living and dying by the long ball hurt us?did Cincy live and die by the long ball last year? how effective was their offense?

 

Yes, I can: 2004 and 2005...and 1998...and wait I'll think of a few more...

This franchise, for whatever reason, has always been fascinated by the longball to the exclusion of more important things.

 

This convo began by my pointing out that Posednik does not suck. To say that he does is a gross overstatement.

 

Dude, don't just throw out something without backing it up. You don't even qualify your statements. It's strange to me that i specifically disagreed with two of those examples (2005 and 2004) in the post you replied to.

 

Your argument goes something like this... I believe X. I can prove it b/c I believe X.

 

Please, show me how Pods doesn't suck. Where are the examples showing your statement is true? I think I'm the only one who had anything remotely flattering to say about him (OBP in terms of AL CFers) with evidence.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

at the very least they should be used to complement the old school approach to baseball.

 

You got it right in that specific statement, stick with that. They should be used as a compliment; denying that Podsednik was nothing short of a critical part of a World Series team is pretty crazy IMHO.

 

If Posednik was so critical, why did the White Sox score fewer runs in 2005 than in 2004. I think the White Sox success was more indicative of their phenomenal pitching than anything the offense contributed.

[fearthecubs]

at the very least they should be used to complement the old school approach to baseball.

 

You got it right in that specific statement, stick with that. They should be used as a compliment; denying that Podsednik was nothing short of a critical part of a World Series team is pretty crazy IMHO.

 

If Posednik was so critical, why did the White Sox score fewer runs in 2005 than in 2004. I think the White Sox success was more indicative of their phenomenal pitching than anything the offense contributed.

 

I'm not debating if pitching or hitting was more crucial to their championship, I don't want to open that can of worms.

[RynoRules]

Yeah, I am not debating his overall importance. I am simply stating that to equate Podsednik with players who "suck" (like Neifi and Macias, for example) is ridiculous. He had a nice first half last year, a bad second. Doesn't mean that he sucks. You make it sound like I am equating him to an HOFer.

 

As far as my use of 04', 05' and 98' as examples, note that the Cubs were at or near the top of the NL in HRs each of those years, but made the playoffs once. This team has been all about the HR for far too long, dating far back into my youth.

[YearofDaCubs]

Yeah, I am not debating his overall importance. I am simply stating that to equate Podsednik with players who "suck" (like Neifi and Macias, for example) is ridiculous. He had a nice first half last year, a bad second. Doesn't mean that he sucks. You make it sound like I am equating him to an HOFer.

 

As far as my use of 04', 05' and 98' as examples, note that the Cubs were at or near the top of the NL in HRs each of those years, but made the playoffs once. This team has been all about the HR for far too long, dating far back into my youth.

Podz was on fire until he got hurt. I would gladly take him to be our CFer.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Yeah, I am not debating his overall importance. I am simply stating that to equate Podsednik with players who "suck" (like Neifi and Macias, for example) is ridiculous. He had a nice first half last year, a bad second. Doesn't mean that he sucks. You make it sound like I am equating him to an HOFer.

 

As far as my use of 04', 05' and 98' as examples, note that the Cubs were at or near the top of the NL in HRs each of those years, but made the playoffs once. This team has been all about the HR for far too long, dating far back into my youth.

 

There are two main components to a team - Offense and defense. Wood only had 140 IP in 2004. Prior had 118 IP. I humbly submit that the lack of innings from 2 of our best 3 pitchers had more to do with not making the playoffs than the offense (considering we missed the WC by 3 games). We barely missed the playoffs with a meltdown at the end and a lack of innings from Prior and Wood. The offense was good enough. (top half of NL).

 

I don't see the connection between the long ball and failing to make the playoffs. There are many similarities we can take from all of our failed years. That doesn't mean they are necessarily the cause of failure, even though they were present at the time.

[Bgbird68]

There are many similarities we can take from all of our failed years. That doesn't mean they are necessarily the cause of failure, even though they were present at the time.

 

?

 

If a team has consistently failed and the team has similar characteristics year after year and yet continues to fail, how could the characteristics not factor into causing the failure?