lol I'll just stop, but thanks for the link. I've been arguing over this all day, I'm gonna try my best to give it a rest.

I couldn't find Jason's article so I'm going without it's benefit.

 

By my count, the White Sox scored 2 runs or less 45 times.  They scored 9 or more runs 35 times.

 

Whether they are unusual v the rest of the league or not, they were a 1 and 44 in the low production games.  Adding a run to these type of games, while subtracting 2 runs from the high scoring games, feels to me like it would result in more wins, even though the gross runs scored would decline.

Though your theory was shot down for not being logical, I can see some definite logic to this post. First of all, the thinking behind the "smallball" is to have the ability to manufacture a run or two in a close or low scoring game. The Sox couldn't do that well last year and it cost them. If they can improve in that area, it should turn in to more wins. As you suggested. Regarding the stat padding that goes on in one sided thumping, yes it does work that way as well. A team gets down by 7 runs, they usually don't bring in their setup man and closer to finish out the game. They bring 10th, 11th or 12th man on the pitching staff in order to save the better pitchers for a game they might win. Therefore, while your hitters are facing weaker or less effective pitchers the runs and RBI are piling up, meaninglessly.

 

So, not you cannot arbitrarily pick which games you want to apply your excess runs to, but playing situational baseball and executing in those crucial situations can lead to exactly what you suggested.

Someone called Juan Pierre the gold standard of lead off hitters, and rightfully so. At least since Rickey Henderson can no longer be figured into the equation. Pierre scored 100 runs in '04. Which is what you hope for from your leadoff man. I think Damon had 123 or something, but that's just sick. Considering Scotty Pod did not hit nearly as well in '04 as he did in '03, I think his 85 runs scored gives you and indication of what his value can be to this club if he rebound with the stick to an acceptable level.

From http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewPlayerProfile.do?playerId=375: they have a breakdown of how he did at each level of the minor leagues.  Actually not bad in A, but...  Plain bad in AA.  All in all, okay in AAA.  His AAA stats look eerily similar to his ML avg.  We'll see.  But a .330 obp for a leadoff hitter isn't good enough.

He was in single a for four years, that is just pathetic. But you know what, i can only wish him the best while he is on the sox but i just do not see it happening.

lol I'll just stop, but thanks for the link. I've been arguing over this all day, I'm gonna try my best to give it a rest.

I argued the oppostie end of the spectrum yesterday and i decided to give it up also.

He was in single a for four years, that is just pathetic. But you know what, i can only wish him the best whle he is on the sox but i just do not see it happening.

Dude, I see your point. And it is a very valid one. He could be one of these guys that improved at higher levels due to two things. First, he just better and stronger. Second, the pitchers were more consistently around the plate and he could focus on a particular hitting zone. 2004 could also be attributed to a sophomore slump. We'll have to wait and see, but there's no need to keep harping on his 9 years in the minors. We know already!

Stolen bases are generally over-rated. The first guy I read who made a study of this was, naturally, Bill James in the early 1980's I think, and IIRC, he said you needed to be successful more than 65% of the time before you broke even in the risk/reward analysis. Having said that, the good news is that lifetime Posednik is an 83% successful rate - 113 for 136.

One thing not mentioned about "small ball players" they are cheaper than power hitters. In the long run, that may be better for a 2nd team in a large market budget.

Stolen bases are generally over-rated. The first guy I read who made a study of this was, naturally, Bill James in the early 1980's I think, and IIRC, he said you needed to be successful more than 65% of the time before you broke even in the risk/reward analysis. Having said that, the good news is that lifetime Posednik is an 83% successful rate - 113 for 136.

As cheat said to me, if you cannot steal bases at a 75% clip or better someone should shoot them. Looks like uribe would have been shot last year.

As cheat said to me, if you cannot steal bases at a 75% clip or better someone should shoot them. Looks like uribe would have been shot last year.

Bill James determined 70+% is effective.

Bill James determined 70+% is effective.

We can all agree (right?) that Pods should steal, since he can beat whatever mark makes stealing effective. That still leaves the question of how valuable those steals are, and most calculations I've seen don't make the effect sound impressive.

Pods, Harris, Rowand will be stealing. Uribe has enough speed but needs to improve his technique. I think you could see Uribe steal 15 bases though with proper coaching, imo.

 

But Ozzie did run at times when it was stupid to do so.

A few of my Cub friends asked me what I thought of the deal the other day, and I said I really won't know until the season ends. I asked them how they felt about having a Cub killer in their division, and they told me as long as Podsednik was out, it was fine with them. They said the Pods was disgusting and every time he got on base he was a threat to score and they would much rather face C Lee than him. It made me feel alot better about this trade.