Announcing the Sidney Ponson Innings Pitched Prediction Contest
This off-season just keeps getting better. Well-timed too. It's always good to turn in a clunker right when the Royals look to be closer to competition than they've been in years.
With Horacio Ramirez getting bombed again -- although it was just Spring Training, so he was probably just working on his horrible, extremely hittable pitches -- and the fact that Brian Bannister has really been no better, it's looking more and more likely, at least to this casual, mother's basement dwelling observer, that we will see Sir Sidney at some point this season.
And so, with the sincerest happiness and excitement, I would like to announce the 2009 Sidney Ponson Innings Pitched Prediction Contest!
The winner gets a free Royals Review T-Shirt. (These shirts have roughly the same effect on the opposite sex as a 30% pay raise. It's been tested. Honestly, you have no reason not to buy one. Light gray is the new black.)
Last week, Dayton Moore told Bob Dutton that had had recieved a strong recommendation from his scouts to sign Ponson:
“We saw him as the best available guy based on our scouts’ assessment,” general manager Dayton Moore said. “Our scouts saw him in the WBC and were very aggressive in their recommendation that we need to bring him in here so we could evaluate him ourselves.”
To be fair, perhaps they did see something that just screams, he's a brand new Sidney! (Although this happens how often with guys in their thirties?) And the statement fully includes the need for further observation and lots of appropriately vague GM-speak about having a competition and the rest. Dayton isn't going to say, "he's AAA insurance and a no-risk flier that will neverthless probably suck." I get that.
Still, he pitched nine innings in the WBC, spread out over two starts. He didn't even pitch deep into a game, which is a major issue in evaluating a starter's potential for effectiveness. Again, nine innings. In those nine innings, he struck out a Banny-esque four batters, also walked four, and allowed seven hits.
We know who Sidney Ponson is however. That's been well-established since the first Bush Administration. This is a guy who has not been good since the start of the Iraq War.
| FIP | ERA+ | |
| 2003 | 3.67 | 117 |
| 2004 | 4.44 | 87 |
| 2005 | 4.75 | 69 |
| 2006 | 4.96 | 71 |
| 2007 | 6.03 | 63 |
| 2008 | 4.83 | 88 |
I suppose I could say something really witty like, this guy's declined just like the stock market, although it's really quite like that. he didn't fall off a cliff eighteen months ago. No, he's turned in a solid five year run of bad play. Ponson's post-2003 career has been a slow, yet extremely steady march further and further from the reaches of averageness. Since 2003, he's thrown 600.2 bad innings. I'm not sure if he'd struck out 30 players and allowed no hits in those glorious nine innings in the WBC if it would have warranted signing him.
Everyone wants to be the team that turns a guy like Sidney Ponson around. Why, I don't know. It must be intensely pleasurable to tell a reporter, "our people saw something, and we knew that he still had good baseball left." That must be the GM-speak equivalent of ripping off your shirt and running around pumping your chest. I don't know. Anyway, the Orioles were wrong when they brought him back. Then the Cardinals were wrong. The the Twins were wrong. Then the Rangers were wrong. Then the Yankees were wrong.
The Royals have put themselves in this situation in two ways. First, you can only get 5.50 ERA inninsg from Sidney if you bring him onto your team, which they've done, voluntarily. (Or at least, he's in the organization now.) Secondly, despite, again this is the annoying thing, despite doing so much to build a good staff, Dayton has gotten lazy or stupid on the details, and currently seems to be left with either Brian Bannister, Horacio Ramirez, or Sir Sidney as the fifth starter. Maybe one of the six guys named Wright and Bruce Chen is also in the mix. I don't know.
You don't get into this situation by accident. Bannister looked like a rotation guy until the Spring, and while I'm willing to say mostly his ST stats (like Ho-Ram's) don't really matter, its hard to be positive either. Eventually, as we've seen with similar pickups, you acquire Sidney Ponson because you actually think it is a good idea.
So let me know how many innings you think Sidney Ponson will throw for the Royals in 2009. The first to post each inning guess claims that total, and should there be a tie, I'll break it based on who posted first.
1 recs |
104 comments
|
Comments
110 IP
Mark it Down
Bloomquist. God? Or just an illusion? You be the judge.
by focs on Mar 22, 2009 6:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Negativity for negativity's sake
It’s a no-risk move that at worst, nets you an improvement over Duckworth in the event that have 2 injuries to starters. At best, the scouts actually did see improved stuff and Ponson will prove himself in AAA for a month and wind up a serviceable 5th starter for a good chunk of the year.
by kcdc1 on Mar 22, 2009 7:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
somebody's gotta be negative
it might as well be me
by royalsreview on Mar 22, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
327 IP! I
Wear a Large shirt. I will rip it off and run around pumping my chest when I receive it.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 22, 2009 7:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
None
During the WBC he must have been focused on proving himself and getting a contract. OK, he succeeded. That exceeds his capacity to stay focused for this whole year and next. He’ll go astray in Omaha and never get called up.
For anybody who missed this link in today’s game thread, here’s one Giants fan’s not-so-fond memories of Sir Sidney.
by 2X2L on Mar 22, 2009 8:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
45 IP
With a somewhat respectable 4.75 ERA.
I refuse to set up a signature....DAMMIT
by RoyalPug on Mar 22, 2009 8:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
49 IP.
Gets, like, 4 starts in the middle of the summer when somebody goes down, along with a spot start or two somewhere, and a looksy during a 13 run blowout in May.
"I log on to RCT after school, and I see the 228 comments on this thread. I actually immediately panicked, because knowing KC, I figured some other fan from another school (most likely Mizzou) came over and said something stupid. Then, KC freaked out at him, and said something stupid (no offense, KC, but this really wouldn’t be that extraordinary for you to pull off) and then there was mass hysteria. I would have to ban people, and warn people, and it’d be mass chaos." - SlowDance
Odds-on favorite to win the "1st Annual Rock Chalk Talk Tournament Pick 'Em Contest" :D
by KCsince88 on Mar 22, 2009 8:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
27 IP
because 0 was already taken
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
by mazoboom on Mar 22, 2009 8:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
22 innings pitched.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Mar 22, 2009 8:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
30
Marriage is a great institution, for those that like being in institutions.
by fats on Mar 22, 2009 8:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
74 innings pitched
too many, but that’s the way they roll.
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
by buddyball on Mar 22, 2009 8:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
the issue here is not Ponson, it is bannister's performance dropoff
but whether or not Brian Bannister is good enough to be a regular starter (the #5 distinction seems pointless to me, but make it if you will) in 2009
and, relatedly, if the royals are making the right decision with him
I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me
by LeoBloom on Mar 22, 2009 9:10 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
33
2 good starts, which gets him 4 more before the DUI arrest.
by hunter s. royal on Mar 22, 2009 9:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
60 IP
Ponson’s not good, but he projects as a slightly-above replacement level pitcher according to the projects I did for my AL Central Projected Pitching 2009 Post (coming tomorrow morning at 10 EST) at Driveline Mechanics. /self-promoting spam
He projects as the worst pitcher out of the Royals starter factory, even worse than Ho-Ram (whose projections are… interesting… read tomorrow), Ducky, Banny, etc,
Still, a minor-league deal is the sort of deal you give a guy like this. That’s a replacement level player, and that’s what you pay him. Nothing to see here.
Now, in the unlikely he makes the rotation over Banny, Hochevar, or Davies, then we have something to worry about. And if both he and Ho-Ram make it (for a reason other than a rash of injuries), well…
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 22, 2009 9:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
61 innings
turning this into the price is right
My stories a lot like yours only more interesting because it involves robots!
by AvilesRotY on Mar 22, 2009 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DOH!
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 22, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am a little surprised by that
still, slightly above R.L. isn’t exactly pushing anything forward
by royalsreview on Mar 22, 2009 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
I don’t think he’s good or anything, but, like with everything, it’s about the money. THey aren’t paying Ponson much, so it’s no biggie. Certainly nothing to be excited about, but nothing to worry about either — Bloomquist, Gload, Farnsworth, etc. are all many, mahy times worse (indeed, this is the sort of contract those guys deserve, or something only a bit better0.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 22, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"No" meaning, "no, he's not that great," not, "No, you're wrong"
I’m not totally happy with the way I did my “averaging” and stuff, but It’d already re-done the spreadsheet a couple of times. My league ERA/RA are probably too high (thus, it’s easier to be average/above replacement level),but whatever. You can read about it tomorrow. If I made the corrections, everyone would be a few runs worse.
Ponson’s also helped by the more generous AL replacement level. He’s definitely in the “replacement level area” though.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 22, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and that is part of it
I understand that I may be being too negative regarding a marginal, minor player, but seriously (Phil Collins) what is the point of Ponson? even if he is cheap, there is no upside here, there is, what? a 1% chance that he’s an asset in three months
Maybe its an unfair standard, but if Moore’s MO is supposed to be his pitching chops, I’d think they’d be better excercised in this instance.
by royalsreview on Mar 22, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it depends on what they expect from Ponson
If he gets Ducky’s innings, I’m driving down to KC and burning down the K
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 22, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is the point of Ponson?
Is it that difficult to figure out? Sometimes a team ends up going 8, 9 or 10 deep in starting pitchers over the course of a season (and by sometimes, I mean usually). If the Royals have to go that deep, wouldn’t you rather have a better than replacement level pitcher eating that small number of innings (see his CHONE and ZiPS projections)?
Or are you saying that if the Royals sign a guy to a minor league contract, then they are definitely going to give him way too many innings?
Maybe its an unfair standard, but if Moore’s MO is supposed to be his pitching chops, I’d think they’d be better excercised in this instance.
Really, which nearly free pitcher would you have signed for SP depth? Do you think average MLB SP’s are just sitting out there waiting to be signed?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
now you are sounding like the bloomquist lovers
its not my job to know, its dayton’s, that’s my point
I could have said, “you know what, Ponson is still breathing, let’s bring him in”
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
its not my job to know, its dayton’s, that’s my point
But you are assigning to him an unrealistic task. You’re saying he should have signed a better #4-quality SP as the Royals #7/8 starter for a cheap minor league contract than Ponson. That’s not easy. Decent relievers are around for little money all the time. If you have good scouts, you can find them. Decent SP’s are much, much harder to find. He’s found someone for the #7/#8 role who is projected to be considerably better than an average AL #5. That’s not doing a good job? Sure seems like it to me.
And when the Bloomquist apologists said “who should have gotten for that much money or less,” I and several others gave a list of names. There were other options who were as good (or bad) as Bloomquist and for less money. They weren’t hidden or anonymous. They were readily apparent. Where are the readily apparent, freely accessible better-than-Ponson SP options?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not so much "corrections" as "adjustments that would make me more satisfied with the whole thing"
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 22, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
your point has been made
:D
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Mar 22, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
63 ip
about 12-15 starts…
mark it down.
I hereby resign from this post.
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Mar 22, 2009 10:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
An interesting nugget in KC Star
Full article here.
Most important quote here:
There is a clause in his contract that if he’s not in Kansas City by May 15 he can become a free agent.
Does this put undue pressure on Royals to bring him up to KC in early May if he’s doing sort of so-so mediocre to ok in Omaha? I suppose it doesn’t really matter (except for the lost games) if he comes up and blows himself up in 4 straight starts or something and we can dump him to Omaha and then FA.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 22, 2009 10:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not really
I don’t know why those clauses are in there, but it mainly means that KC gets a bit of security if the injury bug hits earlly in the year.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 22, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's my half-assed thought
although the full ass might be appropriate given the subject under discussion
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 22, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
doesn't andruw jones have one of these too?
must be a standard dutch antilles thing
no honestly, Sidney probably wants this over the royals
by royalsreview on Mar 22, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OH
And, I’ll go with 60 2/3 innings to match Tomko last year.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 22, 2009 10:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There's No Comparison
Sidney Ponson

Is no Brett Tomko.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 22, 2009 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That picture's file name claims it's Mrs. Damon not Tomko
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
by mazoboom on Mar 22, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could Be. It
Came up in a hasty Google image search for “Brett Tomko’s Wife”. I can never remember her name.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 22, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, Is This
Better?

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 22, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's certainly better than something.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wife #2
wife #1 was uncreremoniously dropped after years of jerkdom from Damon (according to her)
by royalsreview on Mar 22, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he pretty much admits it, too
which, despite its honesty, pretty much makes it worse for me
I’m sorry if this makes me classist, but why do rich dudes marry strippers?
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 22, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sex
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 23, 2009 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
is it a rich dude issue
or a athlete issue?
or are you saying, they’re rich, so can do better?
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get how these guys (well, Damon)
play the field, play the field, cheat on their high school sweetheart, etc.
and then settle down with a stripper
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sidney likes his native girls

Bloomquist. God? Or just an illusion? You be the judge.
by focs on Mar 23, 2009 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
is this the first zero guess?
i guess the previous guessers were way more beaten down than i expected
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, someone said "none" up there
I would have said 0 if I hadn’t seen it.
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
by mazoboom on Mar 23, 2009 3:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2x2l can have the shirt, I believe it will be 0.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Mar 23, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there's a difference
I think “none” = he doesn’t pitch in the majors for KC at all. “0” = he does pitch for the big club, but doesn’t get even one out…
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
or one inning
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if he’s never on the KC roster all season, I win, but if he gets called up but pitches less than an inning, mazoboom and TucsonRoyal divide the shirt? OK by me.
by 2X2L on Mar 24, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
23 innings pitched
warden took my original guess, so i’ll round up. i’m more inclined to say he won’t pitch at all, though.
by marbotty on Mar 23, 2009 7:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting delayed overreaction to a minor league contract signing for depth
Is it bad to have a 7th or 8th starter who projects as a borderline #4/#5 SP (If one cares about projections)? But then again, Dayton Moore said something positive about him on the day he signed him, so he’s probably absolutely in love with him and will give him 20 starts. Where’s that sarcasm font when I need it?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 8:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know where marbotty lives, but I'm going to track his ass down and beat him with my
Trey Hillman bobblehead until he tells me
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
<I’m trying right now>
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
D'oh
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
<<I don’t want to>>
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
<
>
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll try
< this >
<< this >>
[this]
[ this ]
[[ this ]]
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the sarcasm font command is a crafty lefty
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay, I've never tried this
sarcasm is my number five starter
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
by mazoboom on Mar 23, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BAM
Batting 1.000
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
by mazoboom on Mar 23, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
{this?}
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(nope)
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
marbotty told us exactly how to do it...
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
by mazoboom on Mar 23, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean like this?
try harder
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
< i am trying harder >
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 23, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As marbotty said
try using code in brackets
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
by mazoboom on Mar 23, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
or "view source"
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 24, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the page source to figure out how to do it
by Top Ramen on Mar 24, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, now that I know, it's not as fun<code>
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 24, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's what she said
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he even makes the team,
it signifies a big hole in our rotation. I think there is only a 25% chance he makes the rotation out of ST and maybe 35% chance that he’s in KC before May 15th. But, if he does make it to KC, I think he’ll get 16 starts and logs 84 innings.
by rph on Mar 23, 2009 11:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Secondly, despite, again this is the annoying thing, despite doing so much to build a good staff, Dayton has gotten lazy or stupid on the details, and currently seems to be left with either Brian Bannister, Horacio Ramirez, or Sir Sidney as the fifth starter.
Fifth starters aren’t good. This isn’t an oversight issue.
by Bornin85 on Mar 23, 2009 12:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Lazy or stupid? To have roughly 4.50-5.00 FIP pitchers in the running for a fifth starter spot? That isn’t good enough? What should he have done, gone out and gotten some aces to compete for the Royals fifth starter spot? He also should have brought in more .400 OBP players and 50-HR hitters too. How stupid of him not to.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
having five non-horrible starters is necessary for a team with a bad offense
just defining it away and saying “fifth starters aren’t good” doesn’t solve the problem
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How good is non-horrible
The Royals have 9 starters who project to pitch at a #4 SP level or better. Each of them projects to have a FIP of 5 or less. That sounds like nine non-horrible starters to me.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
180
Might as well
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 23, 2009 6:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
23 IP
The Ponson era will be short and unproductive.
by daveyork on Mar 23, 2009 7:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh Crap, just read the whole thread and saw 23 was taken
22 IP then.
by daveyork on Mar 23, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, 22 IP is gone too
I’d better quit while I"m behind.
by daveyork on Mar 23, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
47 1/3
But in his time with KC, he will punch out more circuit judges than he does batters.
by KC Death Machine on Mar 23, 2009 9:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll say 34 IP
only because 0 has already been taken
by gilmeche55 on Mar 24, 2009 12:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Atleast Ponson is an easy scapegoat
That has to mean something, right?
I predict 22 IP
by Royal from Queens on Mar 24, 2009 8:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What's great is that for some he'll be an easy thing to criticize Moore for, regardless of his performance
Because, as the argument goes, even if signing Ponson wasn’t a mistake, it was a horribly flawed process which shows Moore to be either lazy or stupid which led to Ponson’s acquisition. So, if Ponson makes a few starts and pitches ok (read that as an ERA under 4.75) then Moore just got lucky.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 25, 2009 3:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do I hear 74 innings????
Unless its already taken, I’ll go with 74 innings pitched!
Arttie
by arttieTHE1manparty on Mar 31, 2009 1:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 













