Do the Royals have starting pitching depth?
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 1:26 PM EDT
143 comments
I guess it is time for part two of the Royals Review point-counterpoint series. It started with the Zack Greinke contract extension (Will disagreed with me). Now we're on to Sidney Ponson and the back of the Royals rotation. I was a little surprised to read Will's complaints about the signing of Sidney Ponson and the state of the Royals fifth starter spot in general. First, we'll start with Sidney Ponson.
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.
Really? Were they wrong? Were they wrong because they thought he'd be genuinely good and he wasn't genuinely good for them? I guess it all depends on how much money you spend on a pitcher and what role he is to play on your team. If you bring Sidney Ponson in for $5M to be your #3 starter, then you need him to be a league average pitcher. If he isn't then you were wrong. But if you bring him in for less than league minimum (like a minor league contract) for starting pitching depth, which might make him the team's #5 starter at some point, then even league average #5 SP performance would be acceptable, wouldn't it?
Let's see how Ponson stacks up. Last year, I did a study to find out what the performance range was for each rotation slot. This study found that over the last three years, #4 SP's had a FIP from 4.74-5.11. And over that time period, #5's were, obviously over 5.11. For 2008, the numbers were just a bit better than that at 4.69-5.05 for #4's and #5's over 5.05. These are Sidney Ponson's projected FIP's for 2009:
CHONE 4.86
ZiPS 5.24
PECOTA 4.91
Average of those three projections = 5.00
This would put him on the high end of the #4 SP spectrum. I think we need to dispense with the notion that it only makes sense to sign a pitcher if he's genuinely good. For some roles and some amounts of money, being "decent" is good enough. So is it such a bad thing that the Royals signed him to a minor league deal? Is it awful to have such a pitcher for starting pitching depth? Would it hurt the team for him to make some starts in 2009? Does it ever hurt to have a #4-quality pitcher as your #5 starter?
But Will also had some beefs with the Royals starting pitching depth in general.
...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.
So do the Royals really have a lack of starting pitching depth which shows Dayton Moore to have been either lazy or stupid in that regard? Let's look at the numbers. After the Royals top four (let's say Meche, Greinke, Davies and Hochevar), these are the Royals next five starting pitchers on the depth chart, along with their average projected FIP's (same method as above)
HoRam 4.39
Bannister 4.82
Duckworth 4.84
Ponson 5.00
J. Wright 4.31
Now, the FIP projections for both HoRam and J. Wright are as relievers. As starters, those FIP's would be higher. But this gives a good, general picture of the Royals starting pitcher depth (5-9). Adding another .5 to both HoRam and Wright still gives the Royals five pitchers who project to pitch at a #4 SP level. So the Royals go nine deep in potential starting pitchers with none of them projecting to pitch worse than a #4 SP. Doesn't that sound like good depth?
Well, let's compare this depth to the rest of the AL Central. Devil_fingers posted a great article this morning at Driveline Mechanics on AL Central starting pitching, from which I am going to steal liberally. If you haven't read it yet, you really should.
Using his numbers, here are the average FIP's for the top four starters from each AL Central team:
Twins (Baker, Liriano, Slowey, Blackburn) 4.36
Royals (Meche, Greinke, Davies, Hochvar) 4.42
Indians (Lee, Carmona, Sowers, Reyes) 4.42
Tigers (Verlander, Bonderman, Jackson, Galarraga) 4.47
White Sox (Buehrle, Danks, Floyd, Contreras) 4.55
This is a simple talent/performance breakdown which doesn't cover the number of innings each pitcher should pitch. If you include that (as devil_fingers did), you'll see that the Royals starting five projects to have the second best WAR in the division, behind the Twins and ahead of the Indians.
Ok, so that's the core of the rotation. Now, what about the depth. Using the same methodology, I averaged the next four pitchers on each team's depth chart (#5-#8). (I tweaked this just a little from d_f's list by adding Dickey and Marquez and subtracting Egbert).
Indians (Laffey, Pavano, Huff, Wesbrook) 4.52
Royals (Bannister, HoRam, Duckworth, Ponson) 4.76
Tigers (Robertson, Porcello, Miner, Willis) 4.98
Twins (Perkins, Dickey, Humber, Mulvey) 5.22
White Sox (Colon, Richard, Marquz, Poreda) 5.24
As with the first four, the Royals are second best in the division. (Note that if Wright were included, the average FIP goes down to 4.67) It appears to me that by any reasonable measure, the Royals have many acceptable #5 SP candidates and a good deal of depth. Sure, I'd like for the Royals to have average or even above average pitchers competing for the #5 SP job, but that just isn't realistic. But it's good to have #4-quality pitchers competing for that job, and to have many who can step in. Depth is important, because every team is going to need to go 7, 8, 9 or even 10 deep (sometimes more) in starting pitchers over the course of the season. I that regard, I think the Royals are in good shape.
Lazy? Stupid? In some things, yes. But in this, I don't think so. This is part of how you build an effective rotation. In addition to getting some good and average pitchers for the front and middle of the rotation, you have to get some decent pitchers for the back end who won't mean automatic losses for the team if he has to make a start. It appears that Moore has done a very good job in that regard, acquiring a number of pitchers who can pitch better than one could or should expect from a #5 SP.
5 recs |
143 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I hear what you're saying
But I guess I think the young guys for the Twins and White Sox like Humber, Perkins, Poreda and Marquez are much more likely to be decent than guys like Bannister, HoRam, Ducky or Sir Sid.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 23, 2009 1:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
Some of them have a good deal of upside. But even the ones with high upside aren’t likely to realize that in 2009. So, are the Twins likely to have a fifth starter in 2009 that is better than the Royals fifth starter in 2009? I don’t think so, and neither do the projections. This article was about what the Royals 2009 SP depth is and how it compares to that of the rest of the AL Central. Certainly the Twins have better pitching depth for the next few years, given their pitching prospects in the high minors.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Edit
So, are the Twins likely to have a fifth starter in 2009 that is better than the Royals fifth starter in 2009? I don’t think so…
Should read:
So, are the Twins likely to have fifth-to-eighth starters in 2009 that are better than the Royals fifth-to-eighth starters in 2009? I don’t think so…
Also, it’s not like we’re talking about a bunch of genuinely high ceiling prospects when we’re talking about guys like Humber and Marquez.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great stuff NY
Nice to see KC in 2nd in both breakdowns.
If you have it I would like to see KC compared to the other AL teams, if not no biggie.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 23, 2009 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I limited it to AL Central just because I didn’t want to do the work of comparing them to the whole league. Maybe after d_f is done with his division-by-division series, I’ll steal more of his numbers and do another comparison of core and depth.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
quickly summarizing some points that are floating around in my head
1) I guess I’m guilty of believing that Moore should be able to do better than Sidney Ponson. That is, in part, why I characterize this as a “lazy” decision. As I said in the comments to the original post, I could have snagged Sidney Ponson. I could not have discovered Soria or Ram-Ram or Davies. Perhaps its unfair to compare a mundane move to some of Moore’s best, but in a way I feel like this is justified. Moore is supposed to be a pitching guru. Basically, that’s all we’ve got. So when he’s not, even if he’s average, I see that as potentially a net negative.
1A) In that regard, I’m not sure Ponson is really building depth per se, so much as he’s an opportunity cost innings suck that will clearly be preferred by Hillman when it comes down to it.
2) The Royals are going to need to win with pitching, and while I’m not so brazen as to discount your numbers, I still feel like, intellectually, the distinction between #1-#5 starters isn’t really one that SHOULD mean a whole lot in roster construction. You need five good starters. THE ROYALS ESPECIALLY need good starters because they are trying to win with pitching. In a way, saying Ponson is ok as a #5 starter is akin to all the arguments we hear about TPJ, since really, “you don’t need your SS to hit” etc. Then again, you seem to be suggesting that Ponson is an acceptable #4 starter. Odd. Weird. Stunning. I’m tempted to say something smartass like, “then why did so many teams not bring him back when he was better?” I have no idea. Maybe #5 starters are the new market inefficiency.
3) Take this with salt, but all we’re really getting as a justification of this move is the little WBC Scouting narrative. Maybe it’s just a beard, but as I’ve said before with regard to managerial decisions, lineup construction, etc. even if in reality the decision “works” or is 99% irrelevant or whatever, it still should be looked at for the thought process that it reveals from leadership. This, as stated, is a dumb thought process. Then again, maybe it’s actually brilliant (see the point about scouting above). I dunno.
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 2:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
brilliant? no
but I wouldn’t call it lazy or stupid. For whatever reason we snagged Ponson first and he seems willing to be in Omaha if necessary. He’s not a good teammate or a smart guy, but I think he’s an acceptable 5th starter for the price paid.
Not to be a a jerk, but is your opinion simply based on your perception of Ponson? What if we’d signed Pedro to a minor league deal?
The Alex Gordon era - www.number4thesmirk.com
by CollininCalifornia on Mar 23, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to be a a jerk, but is your opinion simply based on your perception of Ponson?
That and his opinion of Moore and the Royals front office. I think for some people, if the Royals do something, it is assumed to be a stupid move and that assumption can be overcome with evidence. But I do think this has something to do with the power of a “name” or “brand.” Ponson doesn’t have a name that sounds good because he has a bad reputation and was never a great pitcher. Someone like Bartolo Colon has a better name and his signing would have probably met with more positive response, even though he projects to being only a little better on the rate stats, much worse on WAR (due to his constant injuries) and would have cost more.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1000
I don’t know how such a nonmove could be criticized. I will change my tune when Rowdy Hardy gets cut this week, lol.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 23, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would have felt better about Ponson in 2005 or even 2007
Not in 2009.
He might have been a Colon type then. Now, he’s just a guy who has been bad for a long long time.
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In 2005 or 2007...
it would probably have been impossible to get him on a minor league contract.
Now, he’s just a guy who has been bad for a long long time.
“Bad” compared to what? I really don’t understand the tremendous negativity and opposition to this signing. It’s not as if Moore signed him to a 3/$8M deal and automatically slotted him in as the #3 starter. He was signed to a very team-friendly and flexible deal to be what he is in 2009…valuable and GOOD insurance for a #5 starter role.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, is a #4-quality starter "bad"?
And if that player is used as a #5 SP, can #4-quality pitching in that role be considered bad? It kind of seems like Will is saying that a pitcher is either “good” or “bad” and that’s it. If you aren’t in the first group, then no organization should ever sign you. That seems like a fairy tale philosophy where GM’s can put together rotations only with good pitchers. Even teams with good front offices and big budgets have difficulty managing that.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
again, a lot of this is the supposed status of what a #4 or #5 starter is
creatures that do no actually exist
he has been below league average for five years
if he’s not worse than other team’s #5s, it still doesn’t mean the royals are gaining ground on anyone competitively, which is the point
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soooo...
every move the Royals make (even 3/4 of the way through ST, with a minor league contract at stake) has to immediately lead to a tangible and substantial competitive gain? If HoRam starts the year as the #5 and performs terribly, Banny struggles at Omaha, Duckworth has an injury, and Ponson is lights out in his first few AAA starts, then how would his signing not have made the Royals more competitive than they would have been otherwise? Because that’s basically the exact scenario he was signed for.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no... just look at what you wrote
even in that scenario, you are assuming that Ponson would be selected after Ducky and presumably Banny, as well as Tejeda
there is no reason to assume this would be the case
moreover, even if all those things happen, i still don’t think that ponson is going to be an asset for the team, even if he does pitch… hence, its just pointless, at best
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
there is no reason to assume this would be the case
There is no reason to assume this would NOT be the case, either. Neither of us can say with certainty who the top #5 selection would be. Previously, if a scenario like the one I posited actually played out, then we might have seen something like this. I, for one, am glad that the sheer lack of starting pitching depth for this organization seems to be a nightmare of the past.
If this move is pointless (which I agree it may ultimately be), then why are you so negative about it? I guess I just don’t see how using Ponson for the reason he was signed (as a insurance #5 starter) is such a horrible thing…especially in light of d_f’s and NY’s posts.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
because there is no upside, which means we miss out on the chance to try someone who could actually have some
when a decision’s best case scenario is “that was pointless” that isn’t a good thing
especially for a fourth place club
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many pitchers...
are you going to sign off the street 3/4 of the way through ST and sign to a minor league contract that have any significant chance at “upside”???? They didn’t use a draft pick on him, they didn’t sign him to a guaranteed deal, they didn’t let anyone of consequence go just to add him to the ML roster, he’s not obviously going to block a legit pitching prospect who is ML-ready.
I just don’t buy into the idea that somehow, some way, every single move a team makes has to immediately, tangibly, and obviously get them X% closer to a World Series title that year. That’s just a completely unrealistic and irrational expectation.
If you are so ready to jump off a roof over this “pointless” transaction, then where were you on the German and Gobble re-signings/releases?
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
just being negative doesn't mean I'm ready to jump off a roof
I don’t knw just what you mean with gobble and german
i mean, we have the great bloomquist now, another great signing by moore, who should never be criticized
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gobble and German...
were both re-signed, and then were put on waivers. Therefore, their re-signings turned out to be completely “pointless.” Where’s the indignation for those two pointless moves? They obviously didn’t immediately increase the Royals’ chances of winning the 2009 World Series. Therefore, just as pointless as the Ponson acquisition…perhaps even more so because they were both on major league contracts.
The Bloomquist signing was ridiculous (both in salary an especially in term). Even if you don’t mind Bloomquist, the contract negotiated by Moore seems completely unnecessary. Moore should absolutely be criticized for his bad moves (which were many this offseason). But signing Ponson to a minor league contract should definitely not be one of them. It was a ho-hum move that could turn out to be excellent if he is needed at the ML level and performs well.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bloomy is an RBI Monster
haven’t you listened to ST?
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh i see
i guess it makes sense with gobble more, since getting rid of him was also a very obvious move
german threw me b/c he was mishandled start to finish
by royalsreview on Mar 24, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
any time you give mediocre managers the option of playing a terrible player
they invariable do. (See Gload, Ross) That’s why acquiring more of them is not a good idea, even if it is unlikely they will see the field.
If we’re at a point where we have to bring up our number 8 pitching option, I’d rather go with an unknown quantity than someone that you know is terrible. And yes, that means trying guys like Wright or Lowery or Hughes. I know the idea of whether Ponson is terrible has been called into question, so i will put forth an argument on that.
I’m not sure what methodology was used to determine Ponson’s FIP for 2009, but I would imagine it overvalued Ponson’s flukish period of time with the Rnagers in which he actually posted a decent ERA. That was due in large part to the fact that he had an abberant homerun per flyball rate — 5.9% of his flyballs went for homeruns, which is about 1/2 to 1/3 the amount that he typically surrendered. FIP doesn’t account for this.
FIP aside, I don’t think most reasonable people would look at an ERA record that looks like this over the last 5 years…
2004 5.30
2005 6.21
2006 6.25
2007 6.93
2008 5.04 (5.85 with NY)
…and conclude that he’s a good pitcher. But for arguments sake, (and because ERA is hardly a perfect stat.,) here are the corresponding FIPs for those years
2004 4.44
2005 4.75
2006 4.96
2007 6.00
2008 4.83
Now either Sidney Ponson is one of the unluckiest pitchers to ever pitch, having been let down by the defense of every team he’s ever played for… or he sucks.
Even if we were to agree that, yeah, Sidney’s one of those one-in-a-million-types super unlucky guys, and we shouldn’t look at five years of ERA data as his FIP was in actuality much lower, what can we reasonably expect his ERA to be, based on historical FIP data? In most years above, it’s at least a full run higher than his FIP. So, that’s not too good.
Will things improve if he comes to KC?
Unfortunately, we weren’t exactly a defensive stalwart last year.
Fortunately, we improved our outfield defense!
Unfortunately, he’s more of a ground ball pitcher.
Fortunately, we’ll have new infielders!
Unfortunately, at 3 of the 4 positions, they’ll be worse, if not the absolute worst (1B).
Fortunately, Ponson, misses a lot of bats!
Unfortunately, i just lied. Unless by missing bats, you mean throwing it out of the strikezone.
Final thought, as this has turned into a novel. Here’s the projected K/9 and BB/9 for Ponson for 2009:
K/9 4.30 ish
BB/9 3.60 ish
For comparison sake, Jose Lima’s numbers in his final year with KC. It should be noted that Jose did give up more HRs than Ponson, generally.
K/9 4.27
BB/9 3.25
His ERA? 6.99 (but his FIP was only 5.71!)
Conclusion: Ponson sucks.
by marbotty on Mar 23, 2009 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
just a note
for my post, I averaged the FIPs from ZiPS and CHONE from FanGraphs, and for PECOTA I generated it myself from the big spreadsheet.
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 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, i mean i don't know exactly how ZIPS an CHONE got their FIPs for 2009
guess it was based on their 2009 projections…
by marbotty on Mar 23, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
they don't project according to FIP
they project HR, BB, and SO per x number of innings. FIP is derived from that.
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 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't this belief...
any time you give mediocre managers the option of playing a terrible player they invariable do. (See Gload, Ross) That’s why acquiring more of them is not a good idea, even if it is unlikely they will see the field.
an indication that you have more of a problem with the hiring and retention of your manager than it is an indication that you have a major problem in giving a minor league contract to a guy who is potential #5 starter insurance?
If so, then your conclusion should really be: Moore/Hillman suck. You’re railing against the symptom, not the disease.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the two problems aren't mutually exclusive
i.e. 1. hillman might be the type of manager that can’t be trusted with certain players (like Gobble), which is a problem; and
2. ponson is terrible
by marbotty on Mar 24, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if it's that obvious that Ponson...
is terrible, then again, your perceived problem lies exclusively with Moore (acquiring the terrible player, hiring and retaining Hillman) and Hillman (to the extent he plays a truly terrible player over one or more others that are clearly better). Ponson is what he is. You can certainly blame him for poor performance or other individual (clubhouse/off-field) problems, but you can’t blame him for wanting to sign (to a very team-friendly deal). And you can’t blame him for when Hillman might use him.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 24, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we’re at a point where we have to bring up our number 8 pitching option, I’d rather go with an unknown quantity than someone that you know is terrible.
Who is this guy that we know is terrible? Ponson? Is a 5.00 FIP terrible? It’s better than replacement level. It is better than a #5 SP. So we might as well bring up an “unknown” like Matt Wright who, by all accounts, projects to be worse? I’d rather pitch a known quantity #4-quality SP for some starts while another pitcher is on the DL than go with a guy who is likely to pitch at or below replacement level.
I’m not sure what methodology was used to determine Ponson’s FIP for 2009, but I would imagine it overvalued Ponson’s flukish period of time with the Rnagers
CHONE, ZiPS and PECOTA projections, which is better than my or your subjective prediction of how good he’d be in 2009. And I’m sorry, but your ERA-based argument is like evaluating a hitter based on his batter average. Bad stats lead to bad analysis.
Things don’t need to improve for him if he pitches in KC. He just needs to pitch to his projections.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
there's FIP and then there's what will happen
ERA is not a great stat, and I mentioned that above. However, it does indicate what did happen. Over the last five years, Ponson did give up on average over 5 or 6 runners per nine innings. That’s what ERA tells us. That is fact.
Certainly, maybe that was not entirely his fault, and FIP can help to determine how culpable Sidney was, or how much could be attributed to his defense or bad luck.
But the thing about FIP is that it only accounts for three variables — walks, strikeouts, and homeruns. It does not account for ground ball percentage, or ability to induce poor contact. It does not account for how hard the ball is hit, or some other factor that contributes to run scoring.
In most cases, FIP is a good indicator of ability/performance. The thing is, you would expect that FIP would at some point align with the pitcher’s actual ERA, or hover slightly above or below his actual ERA. For example, look at Meche’s FIPs — sometimes they are a little higher than his ERA, sometimes a little lower, but in general they aren’t wildly off, and in general there’s fluctuation from year to year.
If you look at Ponson’s ERA for the last 5 years, though, they have consistently been about a run higher than his FIP. This was the case with five different defenses, which would mean he’s been unlucky with every team he’s ever played for.
Or, it means that there is some aspect of Ponson’s game that isn’t being accurately captured by FIP.
If you look at his WHIP the last five years that would appear to be the case:
1.55
1.73
1.62
2.02
1.88
1.56
1.64
Ponson walks a bunch of hitters, but not an exorbitant amount. So why does he consistently allow so many baserunners per inning? I don’t know. It’s probably because he has such a crappy k rate, but I’d bet there’s some other “hittable” factor in there that isn’t captured so easily in the stats. His SLG against would attest to that a bit.
If Ponson pitches to his projection, then he will be fine. The problem is he never does that. He pitches much worse.
I’m not using a subjective prediction here, I’m looking at the FIPs from each year and realizing that he never pitches as well as his FIP or better than his FIP.
I can say with some degree of confidence that Ponson will give up around 5.5 runs or more per 9 next season, if not much more. I don’t see the point in bringing that sort of player into your organization.
Yes, there’s always a chance that he’ll be better than some of your young guys in the minors. But the great thing about young guys in the minors is that there’s usually not enough data on them to make super accurate projections, and there’s always a chance for growth/improvement with them.
With older guys like Ponson the opposite is true — there’s plenty of data to indicate what type of pitcher he’ll be, and because of his age, there’s little chance for growth and increased chance for regression. So, yeah, give me the young guys — even if they don’t pan out, at least you’re making an effort.
by marbotty on Mar 24, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you read up on the predictability of ERA and FIP? There’s a lot of noise and extraneous factors in ERA which make it an unreliable measure of pitching performance. FIP is much more reliable and meaningful and isolates pitching performance better.
ERA is not a great stat, and I mentioned that above. However, it does indicate what did happen.
It indicates what did happen with the pitcher’s pitching, and the fielding behind him and, to some extent the relievers who came into the came behind him. It appears like you are acting like FIP is just a predictor but ERA is the really meaningful result stat. It isn’t really meaningful. It is so full of things outside of the pitcher’s control that it is a much, much less useful measure of pitching performance for the past, present and future.
Basically you’re telling me that you don’t care about his FIP because his ERA trumps his FIP. That is a unique way of interpreting pitching stats which essentially the entire sabermetric community disagrees with. You might as well be arguing that batting average trumps OPS or wOBA.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying it trumps it...
I’m asking why is Ponson’s ERA higher than his FIP every year?
He’s played with 5 different teams. What are the odds that no matter what team he plays on, his defense keep letting him down?
by marbotty on Mar 24, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can a player have poor defense behind him on five teams?
Of course. And then of course there is the bullpen behind him as well. Any runners he leaves on can give rise to a higher ERA if relievers who come in behind him allow them to score.
The bottom line is that every study has shown FIP to be more of a consistent measure of performance with ERA varying wildly. FIP is a much more meaningful and reliable stat. If you think there is something special about Ponson which causes his ERA to be higher than his FIP, I think it is incumbent on you to show what that is. Merely pointing to his ERA isn’t nearly enough, considering how much is included in that stat which has nothing to do with the pitcher.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So the signing of a below average pitcher doesn't help the team, even if he's an upgrade over someone else?
That doesn’t make any sense. It seems like you’re saying that if the acquisition of a player isn’t enough to make the team much better, then it hurts the team. I don’t get that. Acquiring Ponson doesn’t get the Royals into contention or help them get into contention in 2010 or any future year. It improves the SP depth a little this season. That’s a good thing, just not a major thing. And it’s not like he’s blocking any MLB-ready starting pitcher, so it doesn’t hurt the team’s future. In fact, if anything, he is another pitcher helping to prevent the rushing of Cortes and Wood to KC.
Oh, and #4 and #5 SP’s actually do exist. And they have a certain range of performance empirically. These labels describe something real. Describing them in that way makes more sense than saying if a pitcher is below average, then he’s worthless and not helping his team.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For whatever reason we snagged Ponson first and he seems willing to be in Omaha if necessary.
No he doesn’t. He becomes a FA if he’s still in Omaha on May 15th.
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the signing
Ponson added with DiNardo and Heath Phillips seems like a good signings considering Banni, HoRam and Hoch don’t seem to be setting the ST world on fire. No risk probably no impact with the chance at a slight reward.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 23, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps its unfair to compare a mundane move to some of Moore’s best, but in a way I feel like this is justified.
It is much easier to find cheap, effective relievers than starters. Much, much easier. League average SP’s aren’t usually sitting on the scrap heap waiting to be picked up for pennies.
In that regard, I’m not sure Ponson is really building depth per se, so much as he’s an opportunity cost innings suck that will clearly be preferred by Hillman when it comes down to it.
Who should he have acquired? He’s basically just SP depth, probably in Omaha. Who else could have the Royals have gotten for less than league minimum who was better?
The Royals are going to need to win with pitching, and while I’m not so brazen as to discount your numbers, I still feel like, intellectually, the distinction between #1-#5 starters isn’t really one that SHOULD mean a whole lot in roster construction.
The Royals have the best starting pitching in the division. Check out d_f’s article at Driveline. The best in the division. Is that not good enough?
In a way, saying Ponson is ok as a #5 starter is akin to all the arguments we hear about TPJ, since really, "you don’t need your SS to hit" etc.
I’m sorry, but that’s just nonsense. What you need in a rotation is the best pitchers you can get. And if you have a #4-quality SP as your #5 SP, then you’re doing well. What you need from a SS is a good total value (hitting and defense); TPJ’s total value sucks.
Then again, you seem to be suggesting that Ponson is an acceptable #4 starter. Odd. Weird. Stunning. I’m tempted to say something smartass like, "then why did so many teams not bring him back when he was better?" I have no idea. Maybe #5 starters are the new market inefficiency.
Well, the projections are the projections. You usually seem to accept them pretty well and go by more than feel. I would suggest that you try to go beyond the “feel” of Ponson’s name to recognize that he’s likely to a #4-quality starter. Not a good #4, in fact a fairly poor #4. But that would make him a good #5.
Take this with salt, but all we’re really getting as a justification of this move is the little WBC Scouting narrative.
That’s just PR. They signed him because they like his particular combination of stuff and control. And it’s not like this spring is the first time that Royals scouts have looked at him. They wanted more SP depth and he was the best remaining available.
even if in reality the decision "works" or is 99% irrelevant or whatever, it still should be looked at for the thought process that it reveals from leadership. This, as stated, is a dumb thought process.
Are you telling me that you feel like you know the “thought process” behind signing Ponson based on some comments by DM about the WBC? Neither you no I know anything about the process, except that it almost certainly involved scouting (watching him pitch) and some statistical analysis. Is that really a dumb thought process? If both the scouts and stats like him as a #5 SP, then doesn’t that make the signing a good one? If you don’t like scouting and stats, what process would you suggest?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't have time for a line by line response right now
but Ponson is not Omaha depth, he becomes a FA if he’s still in omaha on the 15th of May
and as stated in the earlier post, I don’t think “who would you have signed?” is really a great response… it seems similar to what the Jacobs and Bloomy lovers have been saying… I don’t have 1% of the resources or knowledge moore does, its his job to do better than Ponson, not mine
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
as a Jacobs lover, I agree whole-heartedly
I think Jacobs will be a pretty good power source, and if we were signing him to play DH, it ‘s a good move — unless we’re paying $4 million to do it, and unless we’re trading a potential closing candidate for him, and unless we’re then blocking our top minor league firstbase prospect, and unless we’re hastening the departure of another pretty good firstbaseman.
But see, I’m excited about Jacobs, not because he’ll help us win, but because I like to watch guys hit homeruns. (Hey, maybe I’ll like Ponson pitching for us, after all!)
by marbotty on Mar 23, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
He's Omaha depth until the 15th of May
If he’s gone at that point, no harm done and no major league salary paid.
and as stated in the earlier post, I don’t think "who would you have signed?" is really a great response… it seems similar to what the Jacobs and Bloomy lovers have been saying… I don’t have 1% of the resources or knowledge moore does, its his job to do better than Ponson, not mine
Similarly, it’s not a great response to say that there must have been somebody better for a dirty cheap minor league contract. And it’s not like he sucks. He’s a #4-quality SP for a #5, #6, #7 or #8 role. How much better than a #5 did more have to sign for that role in order for him to have done a good job?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but it is ok to assume this is the best guy Moore could have signed?
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would have taken a two year, 3 million contract.
Go Royals!
by BabyBlues on Mar 23, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Name the examples that you feel are currently available and let’s go from there.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're right
unless I cam prove that I am a better GM than MOore, he cannot be questioned, ever
I’ll be shutting down the blog in a few days, please go to the Hapless ROyals blog or KCRoyals.com for all discussion
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Mar 23, 2009 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it a better argument to say:
“Moore could have done better. He could have signed a better pitcher for the #5-#8 role for a nearly free minor league deal. I don’t know who that could have been, but there must have been someone.” There must have been someone? How do we know that? And does the fact that he projects to perform better than a #5 SP have any relevance to you? Shouldn’t that have a bearing on whether the signing was good or bad?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To me, this definitely isn't just about Ponson
Obviously, he’s the most recent addition, and much of everyone’s reaction to starting pitching depth may be overly-influenced by that. But instead of focusing on just Ponson, look at the eight starters noted by NYRoyal.
Of the projected #1-#4 group, Meche and Davies were both Moore acquisitions, and both seem to be good-to-excellent moves. Depending on what you think of Moore’s involvement in the 2006 draft, then he has some level of responsibility for Hochevar, too.
Of the #5-#8 group, Moore acquired every single one. HoRam’s most recent contract might be a little unfavorable, but the other three were acquired with a minimum of expense (unless anyone else wants Burgos back.
So, bottom line, Moore is responsible for acquiring 7 of the Royals’ 8 starting pitching candidates, with the possible exception of HoRam, all of them are now generally considered good bargains to probable steals. And they put the Royals at #2 in projected staff FIP for the 2009 season. I think he’s done a good-to-great job with this aspect of the team.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the problem with Ponson
Is that he looks to be the absolute worst starter in the AL Central relative to all of the people on D_F’s list. So, while, sure, he might be an upgrade over the hypothetical replacement pitcher, in reality, we’ve knowingly added a guy who at best will be the worst starting pitcher among all starting pitchers in the AL Central.
It’s a pointless move at best. It’s not going to put us in a position to win any more games.
by marbotty on Mar 23, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
He is better than Hideo Nomo though!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 23, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you really read d_f's list of AL Central SP's?
Is that he looks to be the absolute worst starter in the AL Central relative to all of the people on D_F’s list.
There were 7 worse than Ponson (plus a couple others that are in the top 8 for the Twins and Chisox who project to be worse).
It’s a pointless move at best. It’s not going to put us in a position to win any more games.
Let’s say a few starters get injured. Would you rather have Ponson or Matt Wright. That’s the kind of thing that can keep you from losing some games.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How did you conclude this?
Ponson
will clearly be preferred by Hillman when it comes down to it.
I ask because I’ve concluded similar things before but to Bloomy, Gload, Teahen, and the other “grit” guys. I based my opinion on things DMTH have said or done. But, I haven’t noticed much with Ponson yet or why he would be in that group of TH favored players.
However, I do find it weird but also a bit encouraging in regards to Callaspo. I had concluded that he has been totally on the outs since last year with his “incident” and would not be given fair ST evaluation when compared to their new golden boy, Bloomy. It is my interpretation that they base their seeming “distaste” for Callaspo on off the field issues. But, then they went and picked up Ponson. Perhaps they are more forgiving than I’ve given them credit for. Or just more worried about needing to take a small risk to add depth to the pitching.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he assumes Hillman will always make the worst decision about anything
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
because Ponson is a veteran and veterans are the currency of generic managers like Treyball
and plus, apparently he’s a great pitcher, so hillman is right to do so
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Very interesting
If nothing else, it makes me feel slightly better going forward than I have been lately about our starting corps. I worry a lot about Bannister. I haven’t been feeling confident at all that he’s going to revert to 07 form. But, Ducky, HoRam, and Ponson don’t inspire a lot of other confidence as replacements to Banny. Coming into spring I was hoping to see more of DiNardo, Chen, other Omaha and invitee guys.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 3:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Two ways of looking at it
I usually go right to the money (cf. Jacobs, Bloomquist, Gload…) with stuff like this, but that’s not an issue here with a minor league deal. All that’s left here is the opportunity cost and stuff
If he’s just the #6-8 guy who’s hiding out at Omaha “just in case,” then it’s a good signing, or, better, an inconsequential signing.
If he’s in the mix to be the #5 pitcher, and gets starts that could be goihng to Bannister or Hochevar or whichever younger guy projects as about the same as Ponson, then it’s a mistake.
Thanks for pimping the article NY… I hope you all can take time to read it, I think you’ll like it. You can just skip the boring methodology stuff if you aren’t interested.
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 3:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
your article was great
NY’s above was also good. While I don’t agree with the justification of the Ponson signing, I do agree with the rest of his post.
by marbotty on Mar 23, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cheap depth is a good thing
Ponson = cheap depth
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still suspect
they’ll feel some pressure to bring him up by the May 15 contract deadline to try to realize some value from him if he’s doing at least semi-OK and our #5 (whoever it is) ain’t. In my mind, he’s definitely going to pitch in KC.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
which is fine with me
i’m not sure he’s any worse than Banny or HoRam. in fact i’m fairly certain he would put up better numbers.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Mar 23, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn't suck to have a #4-quality pitcher as the #5 starter
Whether that is Banny, HoRam, Duckworth, Ponson or J. Wright. Having depth gives you a better chance of finding one or more who performs as projected or better.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think you are too wedded to these labels
the royals have to win with pitching, and having a below average guy at the back end of the rotation, like everyone else, doesn’t help anything
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Labeling 1-5 makes sense to me
You can’t throw your best guy out there every day so it comes down to matchups. If our #5 faces another teams #5 and our #5 is as good or better, then that seems good to me.
by steady d on Mar 23, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Royals have to win with pitching
So you’re saying Moore has done a good job putting together a starting rotation (plus SP depth), but not a great one and the Royals need to do a great job with pitching in order to contend? Ok, I agree with that. But you’ve been failing to give Moore credit for doing a good job with the starting pitching. It has been good. And bringing in a pitcher like Ponson for the #5-#8 role (who projects to pitch better than that) is part of that good job.
having a below average guy at the back end of the rotation, like everyone else, doesn’t help anything
Of course it helps. When the Royals get down to their 8th or 9th SP and if they have Ponson to pitch instead of Matt Wright, then this acquisition helps the Royals likely win more games than they otherwise would have because Ponson is likely much better than Matt Wright or a similar AAA schlub. Is it a major move that is going to win the Royals a bunch more games? No, it is a depth signing which could help a little. Or maybe he’s gone by May 15 and it won’t end up helping or hurting.
And if your standard for Moore doing a good job (or a sufficient) job with the rotation is to have zero below average SP’s then you’ve created a wildly unrealistic standard which will likely never be met and is rarely met by any GM.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Lake Wobegon Royals
Where all our pitchers are above MLB average.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 24, 2009 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
if every other team's 5th starter is better than our 5th starter
it doesn’t really matter how bad our 5th starter is. So, maybe Ponson is better than Wright, but it doesn’t make much difference, because either one will still lose. But, we don’t really know about Wright, or Lowery, or others. They might surprise us. Ponson will not.
By the way, the reason I say Ponson will be worse than every other team’s 5th starter is based on the cumulative FIP from devil finger’s original article. Here are the 6 or 7 guys projected to have higher FIPs than Ponson’s 5.00:
Dontrelle Willis 5.18
Rick Porcello 5.76
Lance Broadway 5.89
Aaron Poreda 5.08
Gavin Floyd 5.08
Glen Perkins 5.24
Philip Humber 5.49
That list is compiled of top prospects, former all-stars, and guys that had great seasons last year. Four of the seven guys on the list (Broadway, Poreda, Humber, and Porcello), have never pitched more than 30 innings in the majors. All have very good minor league track records.
Two of the other guys, Floyd and Perkins, had ERAs under 4.50 last year.
The other is Dontrelle Willis, who admittedly is a crap shoot. But he’s only two years removed from a string of superlative years with the Marlins. He might be injured or forgotten how to pitch, but there’s still at least some hope there that he could make a decent rebound. Can you honestly say, if given the choice between the two, that you’d pick Ponson? Can you say that over any of these guys?
by marbotty on Mar 24, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
if every other team’s 5th starter is better than our 5th starter
it doesn’t really matter how bad our 5th starter is
Thankfully Ponson isn’t the Royals 5th starter. He’s likely further down on the depth chart, with other pitchers who project to be worse than him.
That list is compiled of top prospects, former all-stars, and guys that had great seasons last year. Four of the seven guys on the list (Broadway, Poreda, Humber, and Porcello), have never pitched more than 30 innings in the majors. All have very good minor league track records.
Two of the other guys, Floyd and Perkins, had ERAs under 4.50 last year.
So you’re saying that despite their projections, your gut says that those guys are better than Ponson. I’m sorry, but I think the projection systems’ valuation of past performance and how that relates to the most likely 2009 performance is worth more than your gut feeling on those players. And I think you are overrating many of these guys. Broadway and Humber are not top prospects. And even the guys that are genuinely good prospects (like Porcello and Poreda) aren’t likely to show up in the majors in their rookie season and pitch well. PItcher tend to develop into being good players; they don’t usually play well from the get go. But hey, don’t listen to me. Look at the projections. They aren’t divinely revealed truth, but they are better than my gut feeling or yours.
The other is Dontrelle Willis, who admittedly is a crap shoot. But he’s only two years removed from a string of superlative years with the Marlins. He might be injured or forgotten how to pitch, but there’s still at least some hope there that he could make a decent rebound. Can you honestly say, if given the choice between the two, that you’d pick Ponson? Can you say that over any of these guys?
Yeah, I’d pick Ponson. Have you seen him pitch over the last two years? Have you seen what has happened to his stuff in the Pitch f/x data? Have you seen what has happened to his stats? He has fallen off of a cliff. Quite frankly his 5.18 projection includes, in part, data from a couple of his good seasons, so I think it is probably skewed more positive than 2009 reality. Any thoughts of him returning to past form are pipe dreams.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good job
on this writeup. I must confess I am surprised the Royals rank so favorably among AL Central teams. Your position is well supported by statistics. Will, I know you fancy yourself as an embattled stat-savvy blogger, but come on what’s to disagree with here? Sometimes I think you let your feelings on the Royals FO cloud your judgment. I know that sounds a bit mean so I would also like to say that I really enjoy this site and reading the blogs that you obviously put much thought and consideration into. Keep on keepin’ on fellas.
by steady d on Mar 23, 2009 4:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
maybe
Ny seems to be giving Dayton an extreme benefit of the doubt — no one else better was to be had for this great price — i am probably being too negative, given my sour opinion of moore
part of it, however, is that even the supposedly good projections of ponson aren’t actually good, unless you make a number of assumptions about replacement level and a heuristic of labelling starters as #1s-#5s which I don’t
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that the concept of...
numbering/labeling starting pitchers came about because most people recognize that every team can’t always land a Santana, Peavy, Sabathia, Lincecum, Halladay rotation. While it should be, and seems to be, every team’s goal to land as many “#1” or “top-end” starting pitchers as it can, the reality is that this isn’t a fantasy league. There are limited resources and limited opportunities involved.
I really think you’re exerting way too much negative energy over what will probably be an inconsequential, but still solid, signing, given all the circumstances.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
part of it, however, is that even the supposedly good projections of ponson aren’t actually good, unless you make a number of assumptions about replacement level and a heuristic of labelling starters as #1s-#5s which I don’t
Assumptions about replacement level? We know what replacement level is. It isn’t a mythical, unknown number. It is a real number and that number is higher than Ponson’s projected FIP. And my heuristic labeling of starters is merely an empirical reality. One can either recognize that reality or turn one’s back to it.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you think it's near time
to change your moniker to:
I need more Bloomy?
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Minda and I (and maybe some others) convinced you to keep it
I was and am a big Esty fan. It’s a fitting tribute to a bright spot (for one season, anyway) during the “Dark Years.”
Also, if you change it to “I need more Bloomy,” I will throw a hissy fit that will make my Mike Jacobs cyber-tantrum seem like a gentle breeze.
… which is also what will happen if Ponson pitches more than 75 for the Royals this season for reasons other than massive injuries.
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 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just want someone to sign up...
with the screen name “I need more Al Cowens.”
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
to mix a metaphor.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha c'mon d_f
I would never change it to I need more Bloomy because I really don’t. When I created the name, Esteban was coming off a great season off the bench so it was the first thing that came to mind…..You did convince me to keep it, though, at least for this season
by I need more Esteban on Mar 24, 2009 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it still kills me
he only got 331 PAs during 2006, ande was still 16 runs above average.
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 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but
isn’t that a sample size problem?
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 24, 2009 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Este would still be a 4 or 5 WAR player if he had played full-time.
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 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What can I say
that was a lot of bat flipping to fall in love with…
by I need more Esteban on Mar 24, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate Ponson
But I do think the criticism of his signing has been overblown. I think it has to do with hating his personality, rather than what he is as a pitcher.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 23, 2009 4:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
His personality is very dislikable
I don’t like him as a person. He’s a real jerk.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only way I see the Ponson signing as a potential negative...
is if somehow he and Butler end up in KC or Omaha at the same time, and they run out of Zebra Cakes. Two guys desperate to satisfy their Little Debbie cravings and Ponson’s personality/clubhouse history? Bad news. If Sidney is willing to fight a judge in Aruba, there’s no way he’s not throwing down with Butler for the last Zebra Cake.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 23, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I know nothing about his personality
and I don’t care
honestly
in my mind he’s a lame, pointless retread and a lazy pickup by moore to cover a number of similarly dumb decisions, such as this battle between Ho-Ram et all that is now waging for the last rotation spot
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you know that I try to avoid going after you for your negativity (although I sometimes get too worked up over my confusion as to whether or not I’m a defender of out national innocence), but I think that there’s a bit of a disconnect here in the exchange. I might be wrong about this, but it seems like you are assuming he’s going to be a regular starter at some point for reasons other than an injury, while others think he’s just AAA “just in case” depth. I don’t know, either way. It does make a difference, though. If he’s just depth, this is just another signing. If he gets a lot of innings this year, then (cf. above my comment about Bloomy/Jacobs in response to I need more Esteban).
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 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i don't see why
oh fuck. tornado sirens.
i’ll finish this post later.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Mar 23, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
stay safe
a tornado destroyed my apartment in iowa a few years ago… not fun
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
they moved on past i think
the sirens were only on for like three minutes. all we’re getting is rain and some wind, but it has been windy all day (since last Friday to be honest).
hopefully they don’t hit Omaha too hard, but it looks like they may be headed that way.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Mar 23, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you okay 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 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it was nothing
we got rain.
exciting stuff!
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Mar 23, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow!
That’s what I call an up to the minute weather report. Tornado(e)s for you midwesterners and volcanoes for Phil today. Quite a day.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yup
there was already a tornado warning when i tried to start that post, but really i don’t even worry about it unless the sirens start to sound. and of course they did. and of course, they also only went on for about five minutes, so i dunno what the hell they even set them off for.
we’ll normally get 5-10 tornado warnings per spring-summer, but i can’t even remember the last time there was actually a tornado within the city. probably actually never has happened in my life time. just outside the city though, i do remember a few. one in second grade that canceled our class trip to the Omaha zoo! not cool!! there was supposedly one today just east of the city, but it was a public report, not anything confirmed by weather spotters.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Mar 23, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't remember the year
Many years ago on a regular family trip to Omaha (from KC area) to visit the g-parents and others we saw tornado damage right along I-80 somewhere between the river and probably 72nd or so. Houses gone or with their roof sitting in front yard, weird stuff. It had happened less than a week before or so.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might be wrong about this, but it seems like you are assuming he’s going to be a regular starter at some point for reasons other than an injury, while others think he’s just AAA "just in case" depth. I don’t know, either way. It does make a difference, though. If he’s just depth, this is just another signing.
Is it possible that I was too negative and NY is being too positive? I mean, why are you suggesting that it might be bad if he gets 150 innings with the Royals? He’s apparently like a kick ass #5 starter.
by royalsreview on Mar 23, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get where you are coming from
KC should have a rotation of five no.1-3’s to compete. The facts are they don’t and with Brian and HoRam failing to inspire much confidence KC needed to add a starter who has the possibility of pitching 150 “competitive innings”. Ponson could do that and to sign him essentially for free is never wrong. If Bannister or HoRam can’t hold off a 30 something problem child from taking their rotation spot then maybe they aren’t the pitchers KC needs anyway. They both(HoRam/Banni) have been gift wrapped a spot and pitched their way into question so if GMDM wants to acquire a boatload of possible starters in Omaha to ship up for possible replacements then I’m all for it.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 23, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok
this is basically what i was going to say.
even if he does someone pitch 120+ innings in KC, it’s not like he’s holding off some hot prospect, at least not until August at the earliest (when it’s feasible Cortes or Wood is ready). Ponson, HoRam, and Banny all could pitch like #4’s at best, and the more you have the better.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Mar 23, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I don't know
I’m not used to arguing about a guy on a minor league deal. I’m not in “hey, these are the projections mode” now. I think he’s more like replacement level — which a lot of #5s are. I’m not sure who’s arguing what.
For the Royals, I don’t think he should be #5, because based on projections, he’s the 8th best starter on the team. If they need him to fill in a bit and don’t want to call up a younger guy for some particular reason, hey, it happens. But that’s no big deal.
But if they want him to get major innings, then I think your opportunity cost criticism does come in.
And I’m not sure how they’d determine he’s “better” anyway. A couple of bad starts from Banny isn’t a good sample size.
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 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
for example
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 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
your opportunity cost criticism does come in
As many have said, this can come into play. But, only for those pitchers available right now or in the very near future for a price we can afford to pay.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me chime in
Two salient (I hope) points:
1) Soria should have been moved to the rotation, keeping either or both of Ramirez and Nunez, and spending available FA dollars on the offense.
2) I agree with Will in that Moore has more or less stated that the MO is to win with pitching. To me, that entails a 5 man staff where the WORST guy is the equivalent of a # 3 starter. We are currently 3 starters away from that right now. Perhaps we are only 1 or 2 starters away, depending on how much improvement one expects from Davies and Hochevar.
That being said, given the current situation, the Ponson signing doesn’t distress me too much. I think it’s just another reflection of the lack of organizational depth at virtually all positions and levels. Ideally, this kind of signing would be unnecessary in 3-5 years from now, because we will have the organizational depth to cover any and all needs that might arise in a baseball season.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
by loyal2sdad on Mar 23, 2009 6:02 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
+1000000 - Loyal2s wins the award for most sane, agreeable comment in this ridiculous exchange
I’m going to stop reading now
Waiting for April.
by DC Royal on Mar 23, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another Soria Rotation move
I don’t know how KC thinks of the 30 inning rule but even if they moved Soria to the rotation it might be dangerous to pitch him more than a 100 innings. Hopefully Trey sticks to what he mentioned this year and pitches him more. If they could stretch him to 80-90 innings and he maintains his effectiveness then moving him to the rotation could be realistic next season. With a pitcher like Soria, who has experienced arm problems in the past, the safest route is always the best route.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 23, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't get me started on the "winning with pitching" or "winning with hitting" thing
it’s not just Moore… it’s the idea that there’s single kind of player that always helps you more. They “key” to winning is scoring more runs than the other teams. The key to acquiring the players to do that on a budget is to find the best players at the lowest price, whether they’re defenders, pitchers, hitters, or balanced, or wthaever. Period.
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 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with Will in that Moore has more or less stated that the MO is to win with pitching. To me, that entails a 5 man staff where the WORST guy is the equivalent of a # 3 starter.
If that is your standard, it will likely never be met? Does any team in baseball have that? How often over the last five years has a MLB team had no starter in its 5-man rotation worse than league average? It is very, very, very rare.
So if the standard upon which we evaluate any and every SP acquisition (even minor league deals) is whether or not the pitcher projects to be at least a league average starter, then most acquisitions are going to fail for DM and every GM.
Does the rotation need to develop into something better in order for the Royals to contend in the near future? Yes, I think so. Does that make Sidney Ponson or Jamey Wright’s minor league deals poor acquisitions for 2009? Of course not. They are minor depth upgrades for this one year, period. Moore shouldn’t turn his back on depth upgrades because they don’t give the Royals another #3 SP or better.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking of the 85 Royals
Saberhagen 2.87 ERA ERA+ 145
Leibrandt 2.69 ERA ERA+ 154
Jackson 3.42 ERA ERA+ 121
Gubicza 4.06 ERA ERA+ 102
Black 4.33 ERA ERA+ 96
These 5 combined to make 158 of the 162 starts that season. I would say, without researching it, that all five probably did rank in the top 60% of the AL starters that season, thus, it is possible to put together a rotation where all 5 guys are no worse than a #3 starter. I’ll grant you, it is probably pretty damn rare – but if Moore really intends to win with pitching, then I think it’s imperative to put together a starting rotation that is this good – especially if your offense is going to be in the bottom third of the league. As I recall, the 85 Royals offense was 13th in the league in runs scored.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
by loyal2sdad on Mar 26, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll grant you, it is probably pretty damn rare – but if Moore really intends to win with pitching, then I think it’s imperative to put together a starting rotation that is this good – especially if your offense is going to be in the bottom third of the league. As I recall, the 85 Royals offense was 13th in the league in runs scored.
First, I think it is imperative that the Royals put together a rotation that is good. I don’t know that they need to put together a rotation that is great. And a rotation that has at least one legitimate ace and no pitcher who is below average is a great rotation. Second, I don’t think Moore’s goal is to win only through pitching. I think his focus is more on pitching than hitting, but I think he wants balance. The problem is that he is much better at acquiring good pitching than acquiring good hitting. So for the Royals to contend, he’s going to have to put together a genuinely good pitching staff. I don’t think, however, that this necessitates a rotation where every pitcher is average or better.
But most importantly, I don’t think it makes any sense to evaluate any and every pitching acquisition based on the “is he at least an average MLB starting pitcher” standard. Should this be the standard for #5 starters? Maybe, I don’t think so. Should this be the standard for #6-#9 starters? No. Should this be the standard for minor league deal SP depth signings? Definitely not.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 26, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DM
I think his focus is more on pitching than hitting
I agree with you that DM is trying to get to a balance. I think his focus on pitching goes to his statement that “pitching is the currency of baseball”. So, he is good, or perceived good, at finding undervalued pitchers and creating greater value of them. After this greater value is created, then he must choose whether that value should be “spent” by using it ON the team or by actually spending it on the market for other players. He has clearly followed this sort of strategy and has done a little of both types of “spending” the value. However any of us wish to grade his success at that is a separate matter.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 26, 2009 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This has to be the most scrutinzed Minor League FA contract in Royals history
You guys are doing great analysis, thinking of really creative ways to discuss the Ponson pickup. That side of me really commends you.
The other side of me just wants to say – “it’s Sidney Ponson, roster filler extraordinaire. why do we care?” I mean, seriously, that side of me thinks this discussion/debate is completely ridiculous.
I would care a lot more if there were any chance of him opening the season on the opening day roster, which i truly think is close to nil. If we start hearing more chatter from the braintrust that Ponson is a serious candidate, then we can start going berserk.
Seriously, if we want to debate a true rotation candidate we should still be bantering back and forth about HoRam.
Waiting for April.
by DC Royal on Mar 23, 2009 6:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i care
where am I going to get my burger after an O-Royals game? i don’t want to have to go too far out of my way, but it looks like i’m going to need to.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Mar 23, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shouldn't that arrow be in Sarpy Cty?
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in a couple years
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Mar 23, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
It’s too bad. I got my one and only foul ball in the mid 70s at the Blatt with my Grandpa. He lived on South 10th near Casconi’s (or something like that) and a hospital. I have no idea if anything is there anymore. But, I remember sitting on the front porch with him listening to the KC Royals broadcast and watching traffic go by everyday whenever we’d visit.
I suspect Rosenblatt is much nicer than at that time – certainly appears it on tv during CWS. It had just dusty dirt/gravel parking lots and was a very basic stadium.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 23, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One of the WBC announcers said
“Wherever he ends up, at least he will be a good innings-eater”
I don’t think ‘innings’ was the word he was looking for.
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
by mazoboom on Mar 23, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you are absolutely correct, this is a ridiculous debate
Which is somewhat ironic for me to admit, after having just spent 20 minutes writing a comment in this thread devoted to whether or not Ponson sucks.
BUT THE WORLD MUST KNOW!
by marbotty on Mar 23, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
meet the internet
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 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The minor significance of the signing doesn't keep people from whining about it
But of course the bigger issue in my post isn’t Ponson; it’s the issue of SP depth in general.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Think of it this way
Let’s say that you have a team where the front office is better at acquiring good position players than acquiring good pitchers. In such a case, would the acquisition of a backup catcher or utility IFer only be considered a decent move if that player were league average or better? Certainly not. Backup catchers and utility IFers are almost never league average or better players. Such a standard is unrealistic and idealistic in the extreme. Players for minor roles aren’t going to be league average or better.
Similarly the standard that a minor league contract signing for a role like Ponson’s (likely not even the #5 starter, but depth in Omaha) is likely less significant than that of a backup catcher or middle IFer. So, having him be a decent, but below average pitcher (better than a #5 SP) for that kind of role and that kind of money is a small positive. Decent backup catchers and utility IFers are also below average for their positions.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 2:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is why the term "Hater" was invented.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 24, 2009 10:27 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think perma-skeptic is more appropriate
(if I can create my own word) At least Will is consistent with his condemnation of Dayton Moore moves. They are all bad, or at least worse than what he should have done.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mellinger pubbed this post in his
latest Ball Star blog
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 24, 2009 11:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow
I’ve been reading on this site for awhile, and the subjects that set people off never ceases to amaze me.
First, good post NY. It is important to look at several pitchers in the #5 spot, because EVERY team will use multiple guys there. When was the last time a guy considered to be a #5 starter actually started 25ish games in a season? Just because a guy begins the season in that role doesn’t mean that he’ll stay there.
Let’s say that Ponson starts the season as the #5 starter. I don’t think that’s the most probable outcome, but it looks like most people would think it’s the worst case scenario. In April, he can be skipped due to off days and likely rain outs. So, he’ll get like 3 starts and throw around 15 innings. If those are 15 terrible innings, we can move on to the next guy. If those are “good” innings, we’ll all be happily surprised, and he’ll have earned the opportunity to throw more. Either way, that’s not really a large impact on the season. In the meantime, the other #5 canidates have an extra month to work things out or find their stuff in the bullpen or Omaha (or in the case of Bale – rehab?). For me, this “worst case scenario” isn’t really that bad (it’s not the best either).
Everyone try to remember that we’ve come a long way, and we probably still have a little way to go. Case in point – we gave Darrell May 31 starts in 04 (9-19 with 5.64 ERA in 186 innings – led the team in starts that year). Ponson projects to be better, and he’s 8th (at best) on our depth chart.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel! - Homer Simpson
by aHorseWithNoName on Mar 24, 2009 1:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
BTW
D. May’s FIP in 04 was 5.37 (Brian Anderson’s FIP was 5.80 in 35 games, 26 starts, 166 innings). I’m just saying………
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel! - Homer Simpson
by aHorseWithNoName on Mar 24, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I second WOW!!!
I can’t believe this is happening but I actually agree with NYRoyal also. It is a good post. Will Ponson be our fifth starter? I doubt it. We all know that Moore is all about pitching. So, why does it surprise us that he has assembled a staff of 1-10 starting pitchers who have had “some” success at the major league level. I remember in years past that we had to bring up pitchers from A ball to fill out the roster. (Leo Nunez, anyone) What is the problem of having insurance level starting pitching in Omaha. I feel we could have done a lot worse than the signing of Ponson. I am still not sure that HORAM deserves to be in camp. Lastly, in NYR’s top 8, he didn’t factor in any of the young stars from AA last year. Cortez, Pimental, Johnson… all could be in Omaha this season and could break into the top 8 starters. Ponson is just another of Dayton’s rehab projects. If he works out fine and if not then we didn’t lose anything.
by grudz96 on Mar 24, 2009 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I can’t believe this is happening but I actually agree with NYRoyal also.
Maybe this is an omen that the stars are aligning for a dream season for the Royals.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 24, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
????
Everyone who is in disagreement with you is using solid statistical analysis to support their opinions. To dismiss their arguments as hapless royals quality is extreme. Thems almost fightin’ words.
by steady d on Mar 24, 2009 6:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
this should have been a response to Will where he....
threatened to close up shop and suggested everyone should go to hapless royals/kcroyals.com. Not sure what happened.
by steady d on Mar 24, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, we obviously hope that he keeps the "shop" open
but it hasn’t been a couple of days just yet. I’ll guess we’ll have to watch and see what happens.
;-)
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Mar 24, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he got huge, HUGE grains of salt on his margarita glass...
“‘No salt,’ I said. NOOO salt. I could take my posts and comments to another website…I could have this blog condemned…maybe put strychnine in the guacamole…”
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 24, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 24, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just read this entire thread
What great reading material, I went through like 5 different emotional stages while reading. Shocked, Denial, Anger, Sorrow and then in the end….Confused!
FKA "MileHighKCfan"
by JSouth on Mar 27, 2009 11:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- How a Chicago guy learned to love Albert Pujols of St. Louis
- Bud's All-Star tie tops our non-steroid controversies of decade
- D12: Revisiting the Twins decision of Mauer over Prior (again)
- After locking up of AL MVP, it's time for Twins to lock up Mauer
- November means R&R for Raiders fan CC Sabathia and others
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
