UMFan83

Everyone chill out, I can't take all this optimism! But seriously, they have a long way to go to be considered the dominant team in the NL. They are playing like it right now though.

Lets just hope the Cubs can adjust when they play a team that can attack the strike zone with consistancy.

Good to see you starting threads and in general posting with a little more regularity again Jon. I agree, wth is Lou doing?

Geez. Pirates 0-4 against the Cubs and 7-5 against everyone else!

I scared

Here comes those late inning runs Jake was talking about.

Based on my memory of only Theriot, Soriano, Fontenot and Patterson hitting leadoff, the Cubs are 13-71(.183) from the leadoff spot this year.

So umm who is going to eat innings for us when the Pirates inevitably tie this up and we go 22 innings?

What in the hell is going on?

He'll be fine. He's still hitting for power, and with a couple of 3-5 games, he'll be back into the .270's range.

It's just too bad we don't have a leadoff guy to get on at a .350 clip, steal bases 71% of the time he attempts them, and play perfect "small ball" Oh whoops, I'm not in the White Sox thread anymore.

Did anyone know the Cubs currently have the 7th best OBP in baseball (4th in the NL)?

He went 4-4 against righties yesterday. /Dusty Baker logic

I think we need to redefine what is acceptable for an opposing team fan on this forum. This is what is listed now: I'm not saying anything that reds44 is doing is anything more than good-natured ribbing. But usually his posts are more aggressive than a majority of fans from other teams that post here. Especially when the topic is EXTREMELY sensitive (Dusty Baker).

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). They were 35-19 in 1-run games because they had 12 pitchers pitch out of their minds and their offense couldn't score many runs so they were drawn into close games. the astros pitchers pitched even more 'out of their minds' and their offense 'couldn't score many runs' even worse yet they managed a modest 25-21 record in their games. Guess they were unlucky.

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). They were 35-19 in 1-run games because they had 12 pitchers pitch out of their minds and their offense couldn't score many runs so they were drawn into close games.

THEN SHOW UP TO VOLUNTARY WORKOUTS AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE HEALTHY YOU IDIOT.

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.

Hope you guys can hit a curveball thats 6 inches off the plate!

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.

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.

And I'm willing to bet we'll win one or two more before the Reds get a good look at one. The Cubs screwing the divison up bebcause there the Cubs comment was ignorant considerign they won it last year. Don't really think the goal is divison titles though.... What is the goal then? As a Cubs fan I don't know. I blame it on the goat or something...

It will only get worse if they call his bluff and he actually sits out of these practices. Chad's crazy enough to sit out and not get paid in order to get what he wants. That said, sadly acquiring Chad Johnson is not a Bears-type move.

I think all 4 of Reed's hits were against Righties too, am I correct?

Who cares, when you're pitching staff gives up as many runs as they did we aren't going to win anyway Yeah but as a "rookie" playing in his first MLB season, I'm thinking long term