Rockies sign Podsednik to minor league deal worth up to 700K

[jason21nl]

Why do you dismiss the possibility of the batter being negatively effected, anyway?

I don't dismiss it. The only time I think a batter is distracted is when the runner breaks for second then stops. I'm only saying that from my experience as a hitter. If a base runner was going to steal, then go, don't go in and out of my vision.

[Ennder]

I'm guessing the reason hitters do worse with a base stealer on 1st is because the hitter is trying to take a pitch to let the runner go and gets behind in the count a lot. As soon as your behind in the count your chances of success has gone down. Not surprising I agree with rluzinski. Quite a few studies have been done and not one has found that having a base stealer on 1st helps a hitter more than having anyone else on 1st. If this were really such a big deal it would turn up in the stats somewhere.

 

I'm sure there are specific pitchers that really get bothered by the runner and specific hitters who don't get bothered etc but on a global level it just isn't a big deal.

[jason21nl]

I guess I'll just disagree then. When you have a guy like Reyes, Podsednik, Pierre, or any other base stealer, it has to effect the pitcher. From rushed pitches, to pitch outs putting the pitcher behind in the count, from having throw fastballs instead of sliders or breaking pitches. If you have a guy like Jenkins on first, the pitcher could careless. You put Reyes out there, then everything changes.

[rluzinski]

I guess I'll just disagree then. When you have a guy like Reyes, Podsednik, Pierre, or any other base stealer, it has to effect the pitcher.

 

Again, the dispute isn't whether it has ANY effect on the pitcher. Everything you are describing is reasonable and true. The real question is, do those changes result in a tangible benefit to the batter? You'd expect batters to perform better with an elite base stealer at 1st but no evidence has been found to support that theory. Perhaps a new approach might yield a different conclusion but I don't think currrent attempts are missing some obvious, net effect.

 

Without any evidence supporting a theory, why should I accept it as fact? Anecdotal evidence can supplement facts but they shouldn't supersede them, IMO.

[Fatter than Joey]

I'm sure there are specific pitchers that really get bothered by the runner and specific hitters who don't get bothered etc but on a global level it just isn't a big deal.

 

On a global level -- I think you are right.

 

I think though specific situations and specific batters there probably could be a case made.

 

Does it help a batter in the 3rd inning of a 4-0 game? -- probably not.

 

Does it help Albert Pujols in a close game in the bottom of the ninth -- probably not, a lot of time pitchers just let the runners run and focus on the hitter (like Pujols).

 

Does it help a proto-typical #2 hitter in a close game -- probably.

 

I think that the problem with these global studies like Russ and Ennder refer to -- is that they are done inside of global parameters, and then applied to specific situations. When things are done globally situational events can cancel themselves out.

 

For example, I remember reading a study that concluded that OFers would be better served to never throw the ball to the plate, but instead always hit the cutoff man. Basically there were more times when OFers stupidly threw the ball to the plate (allowing other runners to advance), than there were smart times (erasing a run at the plate), so the conclusion was based on the fact that all the smart plays were "washed out" by the stupid plays, and there happened to be more stupid plays left over.

 

The conclusion I drew was that OFers need to become smarter. Certainly it is better to understand that trading bases for a remote chance at erasing a run is a losing proposition, however, there are times when you absolutely have to throw home regardless of how small your chance at success is. Point being, I think Jason's contentions are better made a case by case basis, and certainly not globally.

 

The other aspect that is sort of glossed over -- is that the batter still needs to execute. That is to say -- if a pesky base-stealer causes a couple of pitch-outs and a 2-0 fastball grooved to Craig Counsell -- but Counsell hits a crappy groundball to 2b, you could contend that the runner gave the hitter a better chance at success -- but at the end of the day, the batter still needs to execute.

[Big Reed]

I think this signing has more to do with Tavaress than with pods. the rockies were not that excited with Tavaress in the play-offs last year. Some called him the weakest link Rockie. The stats he generated in the season seemed to disapear under the play-off pressure. I think this signing was to lite a fire under tavaress or to have an adequate replacement in place.

[rluzinski]

I think that the problem with these global studies like Russ and Ennder refer to -- is that they are done inside of global parameters, and then applied to specific situations.

 

I agree that if a person uses a study to conclude, "You should never do x", they are most likely abusing the conclusions of many studies. But in this case, aren't we more intersted in the macro view? I want to know the aggregate value of having Pods on my team.

 

For example, I remember reading a study that concluded that OFers would be better served to never throw the ball to the plate, but instead always hit the cutoff man. Basically there were more times when OFers stupidly threw the ball to the plate (allowing other runners to advance), than there were smart times (erasing a run at the plate), so the conclusion was based on the fact that all the smart plays were "washed out" by the stupid plays, and there happened to be more stupid plays left over.

 

If that was their conclusion, it was painfully wrong. By never throwing home, they would change the environment that they were studying in the first place. It's like saying a particular pitcher should never throw his changeup because his fastball has so much more success. Commen sense tells us what's wrong with that statement.

[Fatter than Joey]

But in this case, aren't we more intersted in the macro view? I want to know the aggregate value of having Pods on my team.

 

Perhaps. I'm not really here to argue about the aggregate value of having Pods -- rather the idea of referring some sort of general study and then using that to say something specific "Pods had no effect on the pitchers" (with regard to the study mentioned). I guess I have a problem using a general study, to assess the effect a specific player had on a specific team, in a specific season. If you wanted to say something like "The Brewers should not get a base-stealer type of player because it doesn't help the batters at the plate" -- I find that more acceptable -- I guess.

 

If that was their conclusion, it was painfully wrong.

 

Well I probably grossly misrepresented it. My point was this some players make the right choices hit the cutoff/throw home, other players often make the wrong decision. A lot of that gets evened out -- and perhaps stupid players should always throw to the cutoff - but that doesn't mean that there weren't some players that were able to do the right thing.

[Fatter than Joey]

The important question that should have been asked anyway is "What young Brewer(s) would have ended up stealing Pods wife"?

 

I think JJ Hardy.