bmags Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 QUOTE(3E8 @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 05:40 AM) <!--quoteo(post=1566653:date=Jan 29, 2008 -> 02:34 PM:name=Heads22)-->QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) <!--quotec-->80-44 w/Pods in 2005 19-19 without. I got as fed up with Pods as everyone the last couple of years, but it's borderline retarded to say that he didn't have a big effect on that 2005 team. That is not a scientific analysis. It seems as though in the years you were fed up with Podsednik, he had a greater impact on our win total (using your method) than he did in 2005. We should get him back from the Rockies and start him no matter what, we would probably take the division. to be fair, at the start of 2007, he was literally the only offensive highlight for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 01:28 AM) to be fair, at the start of 2007, he was literally the only offensive highlight for us. Yep, for 7 games in April Scott Podsednik was the s***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvjeremylv Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 01:28 AM) to be fair, at the start of 2007, he was literally the only offensive highlight for us. I seem to recall Erstad had a good start. But it seems so long ago.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 06:45 AM) I seem to recall Erstad had a good start. But it seems so long ago.... I harped on this during the season, and I'll repeat it now. Erstad did not have a good start (aside from the first day, where he had a home run). He hit .261 in April and .266 in May. It only appeared he had a good start because 2/3 of our lineup was hitting around .200 for that first month. He hit .260 but seemed to be doing well because no one else in the lineup was hitting .260 or above. He did however have a great July. Put up an OPS of 2.000. Dominated. In that one at bat. Edited January 31, 2008 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvjeremylv Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 10:58 AM) I harped on this during the season, and I'll repeat it now. Erstad did not have a good start (aside from the first day, where he had a home run). He hit .261 in April and .266 in May. It only appeared he had a good start because 2/3 of our lineup was hitting around .200 for that first month. He hit .260 but seemed to be doing well because no one else in the lineup was hitting .260 or above. He did however have a great July. Put up an OPS of 2.000. Dominated. In that one at bat. Ok, settle down. It was a long time ago, like I said, and really...does it matter now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 since this is a thread about dotel and not podsednik, i thought everyone would enjoy this tidbit. CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE WEEK Octavio Dotel has made 354 consecutive relief appearances over the last seven seasons. But that didn't stop the White Sox from tossing a $25,000 incentive clause into his new deal just in case he's named to be the starting pitcher in the All-Star Game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 01:42 PM) since this is a thread about dotel and not podsednik, i thought everyone would enjoy this tidbit. CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE WEEK Octavio Dotel has made 354 consecutive relief appearances over the last seven seasons. But that didn't stop the White Sox from tossing a $25,000 incentive clause into his new deal just in case he's named to be the starting pitcher in the All-Star Game. That is an odd one. They should add one for Silver Slugger, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 That's cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Someone's funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 QUOTE(3E8 @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 12:40 AM) <!--quoteo(post=1566653:date=Jan 29, 2008 -> 02:34 PM:name=Heads22)-->QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) <!--quotec-->80-44 w/Pods in 2005 19-19 without. I got as fed up with Pods as everyone the last couple of years, but it's borderline retarded to say that he didn't have a big effect on that 2005 team. That is not a scientific analysis. Year Record when Podsednik Starts Record when Podsednik doesn't Start Sox Winning % increase when Pods starts (%) 2005 80-44 19-19 29 2006 75-46 15-26 69 2007 31-25 41-65 43 It seems as though in the years you were fed up with Podsednik, he had a greater impact on our win total (using your method) than he did in 2005. We should get him back from the Rockies and start him no matter what, we would probably take the division. Neither is that. Correlation doesn't imply causality, and if you really wanted to see Pods's worth, you could just run a regression analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Yeah, I know it's not. I'm trying to point out you can't look at the Sox record with and then without Podsednik to determine his worth to the team. Because in years 2006 and 2007 when Podsednik was playing worse than 2005, we had a larger improvement in our winning percentage in his starts. Which makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance Law Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 10:58 AM) I harped on this during the season, and I'll repeat it now. Erstad did not have a good start (aside from the first day, where he had a home run). He hit .261 in April and .266 in May. It only appeared he had a good start because 2/3 of our lineup was hitting around .200 for that first month. He hit .260 but seemed to be doing well because no one else in the lineup was hitting .260 or above. He did however have a great July. Put up an OPS of 2.000. Dominated. In that one at bat. True, not only was everyone else brutal, and Erstad had a league average batting average, but it seems to me he was hitting like .300 with runners in scoring position in the first half. He appeared to be the only guy who could knock in a run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.