XZero771679666304

You're stuck on this notion that Pods got on base a ton and that was his primary value. The problem with that is that he didn't get on base a ton. He didn't score a lot of runs. You're ignoring the concrete evidence that says he wasn't very good, even at the job you are saying made such a huge difference. You are buying into the mythos of the 2005 Sox and not the reality of the 2005 Sox. The reality where Pods didn't get on base a high rate, didn't get driven in by the heart of the order a lot, and didn't change the game with his speed. Not many doubles, not many triples (where's that game changing speed?). Poor stolen base rate, not many runs. The reality where the only stat in which the Sox were in the upper half of the league was homers. That was a team that waited for the homer. Dead last in doubles, way down the list in triples. Bad team OBP (just because Pods had the second highest OBP on a team with no one that got on base does not mean he was good at it), bad team CS%, middle of the pack in sacrifices. Average to well below average in all the "small ball" areas. I have empirical evidence on my side. You are the one who is choosing what to believe. The stats don't lie. This is a clear case of perception vs. reality. If you want continue to argue, you'll have to find someone else. I find it taxing to debate with people who look past the facts.

Unprofessional in the extreme. But since the Cubs are broadcast on a national superstation, the standard for impartiality is probably a tad higher, and I am sure that carries over to the Comcast broadcasts.

Of course not. And you know what? He has gotten on base at about the same rate as Pods, stolen bases with much better proficiency, and knocked the stuffing out of the ball. Pods 05' = .351 OBP, 47 BB Soriano 07' = .337, 31 BB How do you figure he gets on the same rate? Career numbers. Both have poor career OBP, but Sori's are easier to tolerate because he'll drive himself in 35+ times. He also puts himself in scoring position more often. Also, Sori's career high OBP is equal to Pod's, but with the bonus of 61 more XBH than Pods, resulting in 39 more runs scored. And lets look at a more important stat, OPS. Pods '05 = .700 Soriano '07 = .897 Or runs: Pods '05 = 80 runs Soriano '07 = 97 runs And I'm saying Soriano isn't a very good leadoff hitter. I guarantee you that 99.99% of baseball execs would take Sori over Pods with no hesitation whatsoever.

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.

Of course not. And you know what? He has gotten on base at about the same rate as Pods, stolen bases with much better proficiency, and knocked the stuffing out of the ball.

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.

If Johnson can play close to as well as he did in 2006, he's better than Crisp. There's no sense in pursuing Crisp at this point.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/...=.jsp&c_id=cin DUSTY HATES DA YOUNG PLAYERZ! I know you're being sarcastic, but just wait. A lot of us cut Dusty a ton of slack in 2003, but then saw the error of our ways. And Votto is the exception, not the rule when it comes to Dusty. Oh, he'll end up hating Dusty. If you go back through my posts over my tenure here, you can see my transformation from one who always tried to give Dusty the benefit of the doubt when no one else would to wanting him fired from Chicago via cannon. If you are an informed and perceptive fan, you literally can't deal with him for very long without nearly losing your mind.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/...=.jsp&c_id=cin DUSTY HATES DA YOUNG PLAYERZ! Clearly Votto's newfound refusal to take a walk is the cause. :D But seriously, did he give him a choice?

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... At this point I just measure my goals incrementally. (at least when it comes to the Cubs)

Exactly. I have been all over the country, and with the possible exception of the Red Sox, the Cubs have the biggest and most omnipresent baseball fanbase, IMO.

Agreed. I also would contest the idea that almost all of the idiots are in the bleachers. The vast majority are, but the percentage of idiots in other areas are higher at Wrigley than other parks I've been to. This was confirmed by my experiences this week. I'm not the kind of guy who has to be completely serious at the game and can't stand any drinking. I usually hit the bar for an hour, hour and a half before the game and have a few beers during the game. There are just so many absolute morons at Wrigley that I really don't get as much enjoyment out of it as when I watch them on the road. It seems like it's really increased since about August '03. I have very little tolerance for drunk people (all I ever drink at Wrigley is Pepsi), and it genuinely irritates me when people around me at a game are just there to drink and take up space. But on the occasions that I have been to Wrigley (admittedly far fewer since I moved out of the region), I either have been in the most "civilized" sections, or simply tune the drunks out as best I can, which is easier when I have the game to focus on. But it does seem to have gotten worse since 2003, when apparently the monkeys realized losing didn't have to be a forgone conclusion, and that they could express their displeasure. I think that not only did the way 2003 went caused this, but how quickly the team went into the toilet afterwards.

And I'm willing to bet we'll win one or two more before the Reds get a good look at one.

Yeah, I see a lot of Cubs fans that are tools. But like i said, the vast majority don't fall into that category. The perception arises from the few that congregate in the bleachers closest to the field, and that many fans of less popular teams that have had more success can't stand that the Cubs have a fan base that puts theirs to shame (size wise). It's akin to the red headed stepchild syndrome Sox fans have. I can empathize with it, but it's still transparent BS. As for the most obnoxious, I can name a few teams with more obnoxious fans, but not a lot.

That's the problem. There may only be 7-8,000 jackasses at Wrigley, but they are all in the same (and most visible) place.

Much of what he said is very true, because when you have 10 times as many fans, you'll have 10 times as many jackass fans. But to say the majority of the fans at Wrigley everyday fall into this category is totally false. A quarter, maybe. It is an old and tired notion propagated by fans of teams who look to downplay the fact that the Cubs' fanbase dwarfs theirs by categorizing most of it as being comprised of drunken idiots. That's not to say there isn't a lot of behavior that goes on that embarrasses me, but I have been to Wrigley enough to know there aren't as many bad apples as it may seem. You could fill GABP multiple times over with good, solid Cubs fans. But Marty Brennaman is a total wanker regardless. The same goes for Thom.

I can understand the other things (agreeing with them to varying degrees), but why Henry Blanco? Lou has only started him 3 times out of 15 games. That's normal for a backup catcher, and if you take Blanco away from Lou that only means that Lou will have Koyie Hill for those 3 games. More than any other position (except pitcher) catcher is the one where you can't run the same guy out there every game without killing him. If Geo starts 135+ games, I'll be happy.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/36/42/22184236.jpg Thanks, I just about choked on my sandwich.

That's going waaaaaaay too far. If he were writhing in pain I wouldn't have said it. But a knick or ding allowing someone else to get in there wouldn't be a bad thing. Because his .357 OBP is really killing this team. Yeah, like that's going to continue. And his defense is hurting the team. And nobody else's defense has ever hurt the team? If I remember correctly, just within the last couple of weeks Cedeno made an error and 3 runs scored afterwards. Come on. Theriot's lack of range/arm has an effect nearly every game. It's not just about errors, it's about not getting to balls that most SS would get to, and not having much arm. And in a month or two when his OBP is .325 or lower, the effect will be even greater.

Hopefully he finds his missing velocity, because I don't think he's going anywhere, at least for long. It's not even velocity so much as it's the location of his pitches. Everything is on the upper half. True, but the velocity can mask some of that. Missing up at 92 mph is a lot better than missing up at 87 mph. Lilly wasn't exactly a surgeon last year, either.

Hopefully he finds his missing velocity, because I don't think he's going anywhere, at least for long.

I'm pretty sure I remember the Phillies scoring something like 12 with 2 out in the bottom of the ninth to win years ago.

That's going waaaaaaay too far. If he were writhing in pain I wouldn't have said it. But a knick or ding allowing someone else to get in there wouldn't be a bad thing. Because his .357 OBP is really killing this team. Yeah, like that's going to continue. And his defense is hurting the team.

That's going waaaaaaay too far. If he were writhing in pain I wouldn't have said it. But a knick or ding allowing someone else to get in there wouldn't be a bad thing.

Except Fontenot and Theriot are up so, yeah its over. The question is, who sucks worse? Fontenot. And that's saying something. BE HURT RIOT EDIT: That wasn't very nice. But I meant it