Javier Vazquez is OK, Scott Podsednik is "back"

by The Cheat on Apr 19, 2006 5:13 PM CDT in White Sox News

Looks like I'm going to have to come up with a new poll question. A few of you were calling for it to be taken down yesterday when Pods stole a couple of bases, but I thought it should remain at least until the correct answer was apparent.

When Emil Brown got a bad read on a line drive, Hawk proclaimed, "He's back," referring to Podsednik's return to respectability at getting on base. It's only slightly humorous that Pods was able to make 2 outs on the basepaths to really cement his "backness."

The Sox wasted opportunities to score early and often, which is pretty normal for a game started by Scott Elarton. I can't figure out why they have a problem with his middling high-fastball repertoire. Those wasted opportunities nearly came back to bite them, as Ozzie had to call on Bobby Jenks for the rare 4-run save in relief of Cotts in the 9th.

Javier Vazquez was allowed to cruise thanks in large part to three gift runs from the hapless Royals. Vazquez' fastball was filthy today. And his curveball and change weren't too shabby either. The first hit he allowed was a check swing roller down the third base line by Dougy Alphabet. Vazquez might have had a play on it, but he waited for it to roll foul. But it never did.

Taking into account the competition, it was hard to gauge how well Vazquez was throwing. The Royals have now lost 10 straight and were only able to score one run in the series, against Jon Garland, who wasn't on top of his game the night before.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

my seat was down the line

and so I can't be sure but Ellarton sure seemed to have a lot of motion on his fastball. Difference was
a. Vasquez wasn't walking people
b. Ellarton wasn't facing 7-8-9 every inning

boy the royals suck

by dyspeptic on Apr 19, 2006 5:32 PM CDT reply actions

Pods on his way back? Yes!

Pods can take his sweet time getting to his mid-season form...as long as they keep winning.

I was watching my World Series DVD collection last night, and, last time I checked, the little fella knocked out a dinger in Game 2 to win it. He will forever be OK in my book - bad groin or good.

by tailgater on Apr 20, 2006 8:44 AM CDT reply actions

question

Do you have a widescreen tv, if so...how did the World Series DVD play? Was it letterboxed in any way, and how ?

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on Apr 20, 2006 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions

Pods

Of course, if Scotty had even a below average throwing arm, he's the "hero" for throwing out Burke at the plate and he never has to bat.

by Bull Pain on Apr 20, 2006 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions

What I know about Pods

Not known for his arm.
Known for his speed...and hot wife.

by tailgater on Apr 20, 2006 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions

DVD

I have a standard 31" Sony Trinitron TV. I was amazed at the clarity of the picture. I don't recall the original broadcast being anywhere near as crisp.

It is letterboxed, so on a standard TV, you lose a few inches on the top and bottom...but it doesn't detract from the quality at all.

by tailgater on Apr 20, 2006 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions

And, yes, the Royals do suck.

Quick poll:

How many games out will the Royals be at the end of the year? Over 30?

by tailgater on Apr 20, 2006 8:46 AM CDT reply actions

More on the Sox WS DVD

Throughout all the series, the biggest cheerleader in the dugout was Aaron Rowand. I was too busy drinking and being nervous to notice at the time.

I hope he makes it back into a Sox uniform some day.

by tailgater on Apr 20, 2006 9:13 AM CDT reply actions

"he's back"

I assumed he was referring to the awful outfielding of Emil Brown, who hadn't made any terribly noticable mistakes in the last few days.

by eric @ South Side Sox on Apr 20, 2006 10:28 AM CDT reply actions

No kidding

Somehow Emil handled beautifully that windy night that pantsed Ozuna.

by Sox Machine on Apr 20, 2006 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions

WPA

J Vazquez        36.5 %
B Jenks          3.5 %
N Cotts         -0.4 %
----------------------
J Uribe          7.5 %
J Dye            5.8 %
J Thome          5.7 %
A Cintron        5.4 %
S Podsednik     -0.5 %
R Mackowiak     -0.5 %
P Konerko       -1.9 %
A Pierzynski    -4.9 %
J Crede         -6.2 %

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Apr 20, 2006 2:26 PM CDT reply actions

ok

These are supposed to track the win probabability right? I watched the game. The Royals had 1st and third, and less than 2 outs with a shakey Sox pitcher on the mound. My stomach said 'uh oh'. Ozzie's brain said 'uh oh'. This graph says 'ho hum'. How do you finish a game in a save situation and have it not reflect at least a 15-20% chance the opponent could win?

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Apr 20, 2006 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions

because

it's the royals. c'mon, you must have a pretty weak stomach; suck it up.

by larry on Apr 20, 2006 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions

hey,

who did they get their only 2 wins against? :-)

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Apr 20, 2006 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions

yeah

that's when we were playing like a triple a team as well. even match-up those times.

by larry on Apr 20, 2006 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions

The tying run never came within 30 feet of

the batter's box. That's why.

A 3-run HR would have only pushed it down to about 80% (my guess without looking it up). I believe that's the percentage when entering the 9th with a 1-run lead. Even if Bobby gave up a bomb. He still had 1-run lead, and he only needed to get 2 outs, not 3.

My stomach never moved. It was a cheap save opportunity.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Apr 20, 2006 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions