[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

The closest thing I can think to do is use his OPS except with an adjusted slugging percentage which accounts for what he would have hit after his sb's are accounted for.

 

So basically, when he gets a single, but then steals second, you adjust his slugging % to account for a double rather than a single. I suppose you could then go back and account for his caught stealings by subtracting it from his slugging %.

 

However, this still doesn't account for the fact that he didn't knock in whatever run he might have by getting a single and a stolen base rather than a double.

 

Surprised though that some stat hasn't been created where stolen bases are somehow factored into an adjusted slugging percentage.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

Jeter is at .772 (.345 AVG, .427 OBP), which has to be tops for leadoff hitters. So yeah, that is your hall of famer, right there.

 

I mean, people go on and on about how overrated he is, but the numbers don't lie.

 

Unlike OPS, a 50 point difference would be enormous. So, while a .650 combined percentage (.290 AVG, .360 OBP) would be damn good, a .600 combined percentage (.275 AVG, .325 OBP) would kind of suck. Pods is currently at .629 (.276 AVG, .353 OBP), which is actually pretty good. Like I said, he's a designated leadoff hitter.

 

This isn't a bad idea. But you can't add two stats together in which one of them has the other already incorporated within it.

 

OBP already incorporates BA into it so that in essence, OBP is the number of walks plus hits the batter has. The reason OPS exists is to differentiate the hitters whose OBP may be very similar but whose basehits are very dissimilar.

 

With your suggestion, we could have one hitter who walks at a tremendous rate but doesn't slug for s*** versus another who walks at a high rate but also does slug for a ton. Under your theory, we would have no clue how to differentiate them

 

These players seem pretty similar, don't they?

 

1) Combined OBP and BA of .655

 

2) Combined OBP and BA of .666

 

Player "1" is Brian Giles- OPS of .756

 

Player "2" is David Ortiz- OPS of .997

 

I agree that OPS is not a great measure for a leadoff man, but either is what you have proposed.

 

 

 

That is the only way that his D could have improved, theoretically. It was a direct response to this statement: "I'll bet that his defense has improved markedly over the last 15 games".

 

This ain't the NBA where you can start to hustle your ass off in a contract year & therefore fool people into thinking that you've become a competent defender. OF defense revolves around instincts & recognition. Those qualities don't just magically appear after your manager calls you out in the papers. Pods can't "try harder". He is what he is.

 

When the issue is focus, you sure as hell can "try harder." It was a mental issue, not a physical one.

 

Once again, the improvement I am talking about is relative- relative to his abilities, not Andruw Jones'. From my perspective, Scott was playing much worse than he played last year, and so I am happy that he "appears" to have gotten his s*** together over the last few weeks.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

I wish it was that simple, but unfortunately, OF defense does not revolve around hustle. A 30 year old player who has had tens of thousands of fly balls hit to him in his life doesn't just suddenly become a competent defensive outfielder at the age of 30. It must have been fly ball #150,000 that set him straight and provided him with the proper recognition & instincts to play his position at a competent level.

 

I'm not getting the OPS discussion either (didn't even bother to read it, actually), as it is not relevant when discussing leadoff hitters. How about we combine OBP and batting average, with .700 being the elite level (.300 AVG, .400 OBP). Ichiro is at .750 (.343 AVG, .404 OBP). I don't know, maybe it's a stupid idea, but it's better than OPS in this particular case.

 

Excuse me? At what point did I make the claim that OF defense revolved around hustle?

 

What is the problem here? WHERE are there any claims in this thread that say Pods is the ideal OF defender or the best leadoff hitter who ever lived? No one is saying that.

 

The point is that he is who we have now, and possibly next year (I'm not sure where you are growing your f***ing magical Gold Glove Best Leadoff Hitter Tree at, but please don't tell the anyone else about it!), and he isn't as terrible or worthless as some would portray him here.

 

The point I made about looking up his defensive metrics in the past 15 games or so is that there supposedly was an "issue" about him taking his at-bats out onto the field. Supposedly his *focus* was somewhere else. Since Ozzie made those comments, and since Scott commented on them himself, I feel as though there has been an improvement, at least, I feel as though I have observed one.

 

I suppose you are right now. I guess we should simply accept that some of our players are terrible, and instead of being encouraged at their efforts to improve, we should all just continue discussing how much they f***ing blow.

[Rowand coming back???]

Why yes, yes he did. Not exactly the type of character guy you're looking to add to your championship team.

 

Hey, imagine what he would be willing to do to win though....

[Andruw Jones]

Better defense? You are talking about Adruw Jones here. Get off of Andersons jock.

 

Not so fast. I am assuming you saw the BP article on Brian's defense? And the corresponding Whitesox.com article?

 

If not, here it is:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5200

 

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...t=.jsp&c_id=cws

 

He isn't as wrong as you might assume.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

There was actually a analysis done of the Sox offense last year that found although they scored less runs in 2005 than in 2004, they scored ~ 5 runs more consistantly, i.e. there was less dispersion in the offense. It was a pretty hot topic at the time in came out, I believe The Hard Ball Times (Studes) did the research and article.

 

Of course there is merit to being able to "manufacture" a run, but if you play for 1 run, you're more likely to score only 1 run. I don't like giving away outs, especially early in the game.

 

The Sox dominated the playoffs in 2005 because of pitching and an offense that suddenly caught fire by hitting home runs and getting on base.

 

Anyways, I'm sick of arguing this point. I've spent too much time on it already and I'm ready to move on. I suggest you do some google searches for sabermetrics though, because it seems you've got a few ideas about it that are misguided.

 

CSF,

I understand what you are saying, and I understand the research.

 

We just don't agree on what leaps the saber research suggests we can or should make.

 

Funny that you mention the anlysis done about the 05' offense. I am not sure when it was published, but I argued the same thing in December of last year with some Indians fans on their board. Here is the url if you would like to take a gander:

http://mb3.scout.com/fclevelandindiansfrm1...tart=41&stop=60

 

BTW, here is some of what I found when I was looking this crap up back in December:

The average deviation (runs scored) is 04' was 2.962.

The average deviation in 05' was 2.269

That's a difference of like 25%

 

Have a pleasant afternoon.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

Do you understand the following sentence:

 

THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT WAS NOT THAT WE SHOULD GET AN OPS GUY.

 

Podsednik's On Base Average, which is determined by HITS AND WALKS, not power numbers, flat out sucks for a leadoff hitter.

 

We haven't even touched on the fact that lately, the guy has been popping up sac bunts....

 

The original argument has been addressed ad nauseum: Pods is in the middle of the pack in terms of OBP.

That is not what I would say "sucks." That is what I would say is "mediocre" or "average." You want to see an OBP that sucks, you need look no further than the Shrine, where their leadoff hitter has an OBP of .321.

 

Furthermore, when leading off an inning, Pods has an OBP of .368, which is solid.

 

I made valid points and conclusions in regards to "the original argument," and in response to that, was told that OPS was the true measure of a hitter. I then responded to that. Don't get all spastic because the thread didn't stay exactly on the course you wished it would.

[Rowand coming back???]

The Phillies are looking to ditch bloated contracts (Abreu and Burrell), not take more on (Vazquez).

 

Any deal to get Rowand back (puke) would likely involve young pitching or Josh Fields.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

LOL, he hasn't proven a damn thing. He's done the typical, "I don't understand any of these new-fangled stats" garbage that everyone always does (ie, "Don't think you can just throw out your latest Bill James p

 

Again, chitown got it right a long time ago, and it pretty much went ignored.

 

a.) Podsednik isn't a very good ballplayer.

 

but

 

b.) We don't have anybody else to replace him.

 

and, on the bright side

 

c.) He's not a total blackhole, as he's still getting on-base at a decent clip (.353 OBP -- better than last year), and he tends to see a lot of pitches.

 

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with beyond 2006, but I don't mind Pods finishing out the year in LF.

 

The reason, BTW, that this team hasn't been "optimal" yet (it's been great, but I think it can be better, which is a testemant to KW), is obviously 'cause "the greatest five man rotation in history" (ugh, Hawk) hasn't lived up to the billing...

 

I never claimed that I did not understand the "new stats." What I claimed is that the "new stats" are entirely inconclusive. Sure, OPS may be correlative to overall runs scored. However, that doesn't address several issues- it is entirely oversimplifying baseball by accepting the premise:

"whichever offense scores the most runs overall is the best offense."

 

Unfortunately, that simply is not true. There are no studies which show that a lineup laden with high-OPS hitters produce runs: 1)the most consistently; 2) most against elite pitching; 3) the most in "high stress" situations or environments (postseason); etc.

 

Additionally, there is recent anecdotal evidence which shows that teams that rely simply on reaching base, play station-to-station baseball, and do not believe in "manufacturing runs" do not succeed in postseason baseball. The 04' Red Sox are probably the one example of one that has.

 

In regards to Podsednik, as has been mentioned, no one is comparing him to Rickey Henderson. But there is no conclusive proof you can offer that shows that stacking your team with all OPS guys instead of any speed guys is optimal.

 

Finally, for the people with access to updated advanced defensive metrics, could someone please look up Scottie's performance over the last 15 games or so (about the time Ozzie called him out about his defense). I would be willing to bet that his defense has improved markedly since about that time.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

Iamshack,

 

the point is that Podsednik isn't just bad at OPS, he's bad at almost everything, and the point of this thread was not to point out that he's JUST bad at OPS. He's terrible at OPS, RBI, HR, and even taking walks (an important stat for a leadoff hitter, wouldn't you agree) in comparison with OTHER LEADOFF hitters, which is even more pathetic. We're talking about other "set the table" guys who also happen to do things like stealing bases and scoring runs ALMOST as well as Pods, but are about 5-10 notches ahead of him in defense and in other offensive categories.

 

Moreover, the things Podsednik DOES do well either aren't necessarily directly attributable to him (in the case of runs, which requires relying on the hitting of another player, as opposed to homers, rbis, and batting average which all are determined solely by the batter), or they aren't necessarily impactful on the game itself (in the case of steals, which AGAIN, unlike RBIs and HR don't impact the scoreboard immediately, if at all)

 

Simply put, my point is that the s*** he does well doesn't matter that much, whereas the s*** he doesn't do well matters a whole lot more.

 

My point is that whatever s*** he does or doesn't do isn't that much of a problem since the offense is leading the league in runs scored.

 

I am tired of arguing whether he is a good leadoff man or not since we can not even come to agreement on what a good leadoff man does.

 

However, I do know this. Our starting pitching sucks right now. I don't give a flying f*** what Pods or BA do offensively as long as we score runs, they catch the damned ball, and our starters begin to pitch well.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

Crawford and Sizemore are unattainable unless you want to blow up the team for the sake of adding .100 points of OPS.

 

Scott does fine for what he is asked to do and what the team needs.

 

He will not be signed to a lucrative contract by the White Sox.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

I think the word you are looking for is "correlate". Dude, I'm trying hard to restrain myself, but your posts are rediculous.

 

We can "quantify" how runs are scored. They are mostly scored when guys get on base and hit 3 run homers, not when singles hitters are stealing the occasional base and 25% of the time getting thrown out and making an out in the process. Don't ask Billy Beane or Bill James, ask Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas, or every other eagle-eyed slugger who's ever been celebrated because they produce runs by hitting the s*** out of the baseball and getting on base (not making outs) at an insane rate.

 

Stolen Bases are a BIT part in run production, as in not very important. That has been proven not with statistics, but with EMPIRICAL evidence. There is a very strong correlation between runs scored, OBP, and HR's, much more so than with SB's.

 

Go sort through a half century of box scores, calculate every team's OPS, and then see how many runs they scored. Than calculate how many SB's they had, then see how many runs the scored.

 

Plot the data with stolen bases and OPS as the independent variable and runs as the dependent. Now look at the chart and see that runs scored is roughly linearly proportional to OPS but not to stolen bases. (If you don't get this part, go research basic stats, it won't take long I promise, like 30 min on wiki) hit the regression button on your graphing calculator if you want to get all pencil headed about it.

 

"Dude," simply because I am new here does not mean I am stupid.

 

If you read my posts you will see that I have not disputed that the evidence shows that OPS "correlates" (my deepest apologies for using "coincides" (my attention was partially diverted by the all star game)) with run production. What the evidence does not show is whether teams with the highest OPS tend to score runs the most consistently, whether they are more prone to streaks, whether run production which does not rely on "manufacturing" through productive outs can sustain itself against optimal pitching or in high-stress environments, etc.

 

Simply because you can tally up some numbers and come up with the highest number does not equate to optimal success in winning games. As you might say, that would be "rediculous."

 

Don't think you can just throw out your latest Bill James p

 

There is a hell of a lot more to this game than OPS and traditional offensive positions and pythagorean records. As a WS fan, you should know that.

 

Don't insult my intelligence or that of others with your patronizing, condescending posts.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

I think we should be clear there are two different aruments here:

 

1) Pods' abilities

2) His value to the team and his future with the Sox.

 

I think it would help if people are clear on what they are arguing. Of course they are related, but I think an argument can be made that PODS isn't a very good player, but he's valuable as the best leadoff hitter we currently have, regardless of his defensive worth.

 

The Sox can win with PODS on this team despite his suckitude. His defense is bad, but LF defense is only worth so much. The players capable of replacing him in left are not better options. Mackowiak is more usefull in an utility role, Ozuna as well. Gload has no role on the team. Widge blows.

 

PODS needs to continue his trend of getting OB and hitting with a bit of pop. He had an otherworldy (read: fluke) first half last year and than went back to mostly crap in the 2nd, although injuries could have played a role.

 

But his career numbers suggest he just isn't that good of a hitter:

 

Career OPS+ of 92 with a career OBP of .345. His career slugging is (puke) .385.

 

Hell, this year, PODS is beating his career OPS by a full 8 points and it's a "lofty" .744.

 

Remember, this is for a LF!

 

Pods is 7th out of 10 among qualified LF in the AL in OPS. In MLB, he is 16th out of 20.

 

ISO power, (Slg-BA) Pods is 2nd to last, only beating...the glorious Matt Murton.

 

Point is, PODS is a terrible LF all around. He can't field a very easy position (relatively), and he can't hit either. He's a below average league hitter in the 2nd best offensive position in baseball. Corner OF is the place for sluggers, not slap hitters.

 

He's the best option this year, next year, we need an upgrade in LF.

 

You can argue that "offensive position" until you are blue in the face but that doesn't change the fact that our starting rotation makes a combined $50 million or so. We cannot afford to have power-hitting all-stars at every position. And don't compare Podsednik to other left fielders, compare him to other leadoff men. On a lesser team, he could arguably play center field (as he did in Milwaukee) and that would blow your whole "offensive position" bs out of the water. Would that make him a better hitter or player since he might compare better to centerfielders as opposed to leftfielders?

 

Haha. This forum obviosuly isn't for me. I'll take my business elsewhere.

 

Not at all dude. Don't let me chase you away.

 

I just don't believe that since you can't quanitfy things, ergo they do not exist. I see too much with my own eyes to take your word for it.

 

Your opinions and theories and stats-based approach are not invalid; but why can't you provide some more evidence that they actually coincide with winning games instead of simply overall run production? Once again, ask the Indians if it is that simple.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

Umm, what is that big red thing?

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

Lol, I have opinions too.

 

It's obvious that OBP and OPS don't correlate to winning games, but OPS is almost linear to run scoring.

 

As a leadoff hitter, he isn't doing his job. A leadoff hitter's job isn't to steal or hit with runners on base as much as it is just to get on base, and get into scoring position. His OBP is middle of the pack, which isn't bad at all, but he needs to get more bases. SLG below .400 blows, plain and simple. He's not stealing at a 75% sucess rate either, his CS are hurting the team more than his SB are.

 

Iguchi has had a high OPS with a runner on first, but thats only a small sample size. Maybe Pods does have something to do with it, maybe he doesn't. With so few AB's you can't tell accuratley. And if he does, you'd certianly like a better leadoff hitter excersizing the ripple effect, becuase Pods is a below average leadoff man and below average ballplayer.

 

According to whom is that a leadoff hitter's job? You? Why do sabre types believe that there is only one way to do things (theirs)?

 

I happen to believe that it is a leadoff hitter's job to steal bases. I happen to believe that guys who run alot cause trouble for opposing pitchers and defenses. I posted some limited evidence of that (of course you pulled out the classic sample size argument).

 

Once again, where has it ever been proven that this 75% figure is truly the line where stealing makes sense and where it doesn't? That's an arbitrary number that factors in nothing but a bs mathematical formula, but once again does not account for any of the distractions/effects caused by base stealers.

 

As for your final comment, what I was alluding to is that the trouble Podsednik causes on the basepaths may contribute to Iguchi's success when he is on first base, not that simply any runner being on first base adds to Iguchi's success (thus the difference between Iguchi's OPS with no one on as opposed to a runner at first base, as well as the difference with a runner on second as opposed to no one on).

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

although i agree with you, I am not a huge fan of pods. Certainly leadoff men are hard to find as you point out, but in my own dream I will take a chance on getting Ryan freel. May take some doing, but maybe next year.

 

Well s***, if you are going to dream, let's dream big- let's dream about Carl Crawford!

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

For one thing, he isn't a solid leadoff hitter, not even a solid baseball player.

 

They lead the league in RS in the first inning, NOT ALL DUE to Podsednik. Your going to score with just about any ML leadoff hitter when you have a guy like Iguchi batting in the 2-spot along with the fact the White Sox have the best 3-4-5 trio in the majors leagues. Put Crede at the top, A.J., he'll even Uribe, and they're going to score runs simply becuase the men in front of Pods are hitting so damn well.

 

Hitting with RISP isn't a trait thats justifies a player as a good leadoff hitter, unless your David Ortiz and your doinf it EVERY season consistently. Too many players, and teams for that matter, can hit real well with RISP one year, and then hit like crap in situational spots the next.

 

And as you said RBI's are flawed, so lets not even bring them up.

 

It's nice to see him OBP is .370+ in the first inning, but he's putrid the rest of the game.

 

Sorry guys, slap and run leadoff hitters suck.

 

For all the strongly-worded opinions in this post, for a guy whose screen name is "SABR Sox," you sure don't back up your opinion with much more than pure speculation and conjecture.

 

First of all, there is absolutely no proof that OBP or even OPS is the be all, end all stat for what makes a winning team. There is not one spec of evidence that station-to-station offenses are most effective in ALL situations and lead to more long-term success than offenses which contain players like Podsednik. They may score more runs overall, but that proves absolutely nothing. Ask the Cleveland Indians.

 

Secondly, Podsednik has an OBP of .368 and an OPS of .798 when leading off an inning. And as mentioned earlier, with RISP, he has an OBP of .397 and an OPS of .897.

 

So as a leadoff hitter, he is doing his job. And with RISP, he is doing his job.

 

You don't take into effect anything you cannot quanitify, namely Podsednik's (or any other basestealer's) effect on the pitcher or the defense while he is on base.

 

A few things we can quantify:

1) Iguchi's OPS is .829 with a runner on first base (compared to an overall OPS of .775); however, it's only .778 with a runner on second base. Think Pods might have anything to do with that? I do.

 

Let's not confuse the issue here. No one is claiming that Pods is Ricky Henderson, or even the Greek God of Walks, Kevin Youkilis. But IMHO, he is a solid leadoff man.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

and its not like i said he was "bad" i said he was mediocre.

 

So had the all star break come on July 1st, just 10 days ago, when Mark had a 3.22 ERA, would you have said he was having a "wonderful" year thus far?

 

I'm sorry, but when each game only counts as 1, no matter how bad or how good, I'll take Mark's performance overall this first half. There is a difference between someone that pitches to a 4 ERA all year and one who is outstanding outside of a few rare starts.

 

Mark has been the latter.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

Literally the ONLY thing that Scott Podsednik arguably provides us with over any other major league replacement is steals and runs, and as it turns out, the value of those two numbers seems to be inflated.

 

 

Now he IS third in runs, and he IS second in steals. However, the runs are more of a product of the success behind him than the runs he is generating with his legs this season. I'm going to argue in this thread that probably less than half of his steals have been truly meaningful in terms of determining the outcome of the game.

 

Additionally, a lot of his offensive numbers in terms of hits and RBIs are occuring in blowout games. In fact, six of the first seven games in which he had an RBI were lopsided victories for the White Sox: 10-4 Sox over Cle April 1st (1 RBI), 9-0 over KC April 17th (1 RBI), 7-1 over MIN April 21st (1 RBI), and 9-1 and 12-5 over LAA two consecutive days May 9th and 10th (1 RBI each). The lone game he contributed to that was close in that stretch was @ LAA, where he had two RBIS in a game where we still won by a larger margin than that (3). Additionally, 7 other RBIs out of his 32 total occurred in lopsided games in which the White Sox won, and a handful of other RBIs occurred in losses for the White Sox. Aside from the Grand Slam against Houston, less than 10 of Podsednik's RBIs this season have been at all meaningful in terms of determining the outcome in a White Sox victory over 6 total games. And all of those games he had 1 RBI.

 

Isn't this sort of like criticizing Bobby Jenks for only contributing saves and not enough wins? Or Jim Thome for not stealing enough bases?

 

Because the two categories Scottie is third and second in, repectively, runs and steals, are the two things other than OBP, which he is most responsible to do.

 

And I am sorry, but picking on the leadoff man for "hoarding" RBI in situations where the game was not on the line just isn't valid. And especially picking on him for having RBI in games that we lost? Perhaps he should have given up so we could have lost by more.

 

I have no problem with criticizing players. But make them valid criticisms at least.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

Just a few observations:

 

Well, for one thing, he is a solid leadoff hitter. I really don't know what it is, but we all know that when Scottie is hitting, the White Sox are scoring. No one player seems to impact our offense more so than him when he is hitting. The White Sox lead the league in runs scored in the first inning (79). The Mets are second (75), and after that it isn't particularly close. I don't find it a coincidence that also happens to be the inning that Scottie leads off every game in which he plays. Whether it is his offense, his baserunning, any distracting effect he may have on the basepaths, I am not sure. But, from my observations, he is a solid leadoff man. Statistically, in the first inning, he has a .378 OBP, which is very solid.

 

Additionally, for as much flack as he takes for his mid-7's OPS, with runners in scoring position, he has an .897 OPS. Not so bad afterall for a left fielder.

 

Ichiro, on the other hand, has a .658 OPS with RISP.

 

One more thing- I understand that RBI's are now thought of by some as independent of individual performance and thus an antiquated statistic, but I think Scottie is due a little credit for his 33 RBI thus far- he is on pace for about 60, which is a heck of a lot better than the 25 he had last season.

 

By no means is Scottie the best left fielder in the world. But he isn't the piece of s*** some make him out to be. And remember people, not everyone on the field can be a $5 or 6 million dollar player.

[I'm finally off of the Podsednik bandwagon (long)]

Hey guys, long-time lurker, first-time poster.

 

I think most of us realized in the first half of last year that Scottie was not the defensive player that was advertised prior to joining us (to think we debated moving Aaron to left and putting him in center), and he has been even worse the first half this year defensively. To my eyes, however, it appears that ever since Ozzie's comments, and Scott's own description of his play ("horses***") in the field, he has been improved. He seems to be hustling a little more, going back on balls better, taking better routes to line drives, and even making better throws into second base. He'll never be mistaken for Torii Hunter in the field, but I feel that he has made a conscious effort to improve and indeed has.

 

In terms of his offense, he seems as though he may have lost a step in the offseason, which may be natural due to his age. However, I think he is hitting the ball every bit as hard if not harder this year than last, it's just that he isn't getting the bunt hits and other infield hits that he did so well with last year. I can only remember a few off the top of my head this season, whereas last year he had several (I believe he may have led the league?). If you factor in his inability or unwillingness to get the infield hits, I think it is extremely clear why is average is down from last season.

 

Finally, while I think it helps out other hitters (and is indeed part of his role as a leadoff hitter), I don't necessarily believe that seeing so many pitches helps him out. He often is left hitting with two strikes, whicht takes away from his game slightly because the threat of the bunt no longer exists. I think he is a better hitter when he is aggressive at the plate and he can keep defenses off-balance. Perhaps he could be slightly more aggressive when he is not the first hitter to see a pitcher, since the hitters behind him don't necessarily need him to see more pitches at that point.