Davies, Ponson positioned early as #3 and #4 starters?
by kcdc1 on Mar 28, 2009 7:32 PM EDT
51 comments
Dutton mentioned in his article today that while it may mean nothing at all, Davies and Ponson are lined up to start the 3rd and 4th games of the season on normal rest if no changes are made. Meche, Greinke, and Davies as the top 3 has been all but a foregone conclusion throughout camp, but the last two slots have been up in the air with none of Hoch, Bannister, or Ramirez doing much to separate themselves from the pack so far this spring. When Ponson was initially brought in, most informed fans took it as a depth signing--an improvement over Duckworth for the Royals' 7th starter. In the last few days, however, Hoch has been bumped from a major league game to a minor league appearance to make way for Ponson to be evaluated in the A-game, and now this scheduling appearance would again seem to indicate that Ponson may have the inside track out of the 4 starting pitchers competing for the last two spots in the rotation.
I personally would not mind if he did have the inside track out of the four, but I suspect that it would displease a large cross-section of the RR faithful. The stats-based projections for Bannister, Hoch, Ponson, and Ramirez are all quite similar, and if trained eyes are convinced that they're seeing better pitches coming out of Ponson's hand than from the other three, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until Ponson gets lit up a couple starts in a row and Banny is mowing em down in Omaha. Until then, I don't think it makes a big difference who of those 4 start the season in the rotation beyond the standard options/waivers concerns.
What do others think? Is it time to start firing up the anti-Ponson comment machine yet? Are we going to be handing out innings to a no-upside 30+ pitcher when we'll have younger pitchers in Omaha who would likely do a comparable job? Would that be a problem?
1 recs |
51 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I'm getting the same vibes on Ponson as you.
I think they feel he is a proven commodity as a pitcher in the ML. Maybe only proven as a innings eater, back of ;the rotation kind of guy, but proven none the less. Hoch and Banny, arb clock and option considerations at play, how does it hurt the ROYALS to send either of them down till April is done and HoRam is proven to be the mediocre middle reliever he is, at best.
I doubt Ponson has jumped to #4 this quickly
Just because he’s lined up in the fourth spot doesn’t mean he’s fourth on the depth chart. They didn’t want to upset how the first three pitchers were lined up and it was easy to slot Ponson into this day. I believe Bannister pitches on the same day (just last time it was in a minor league game because they hadn’t seen Ponson in a major league game yet).
The immoderate moderator
why are we limiting ponson to a #4?
let’s face facts here, the man can pitch
by Will McDonald on Mar 29, 2009 12:28 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Ponson
and HoRam both in the rotation to start the year?
I’m just holding out on saying anything this time until it actually happens.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
all it takes is some arb-clock gaming re: Hoch
obviously, ponson is a lock for #5… if he slides to #4 he could, and should, be the opening day starter at the K
by Will McDonald on Mar 29, 2009 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Let's never stop overreacting
I bet they’ll make it a 2-man rotation with Ponson and HoRam and give Greinke and Meche their unconditional release. Boy the management is just so stupid!
The immoderate moderator
It's quite possible Ponson and HoRam both make the rotation
Right now, my guess is Hoch+Ponson, but HoRam+Ponson is second most-likely in my opinion.
Here's how I look at it
I get the thing with Hochevar’s arb clock.
But as bad as Banny has looked since… well, last April, maybe? May? Well, he’s not so bad that Ponson and Ho-Ram should both be in the rotation ahead of him, but he’s not nearly so good the Royals should be concerned with his arb-clock…
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 29, 2009 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Should we care?
Would you be relentlessly snarking about it if Duckworth were in the mix for a rotation spot? Is he a better name than Ponson ?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 29, 2009 1:57 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, it's hard to say what that's worth
I like Duckworth about as much as Ponson, which is to say they both offer some decent depth, but I wouldn’t feel bad about the Royals losing either of them in a numbers crunch. Duckworth’s last three seasons have a sample size issue in that he pitched about 40 innings per season. Also, he benefitted from some serious HR/FB luck in those three seasons (his 5.8, 5.5 and 5.0% were each about half of the normal rate) and his LD% was certainly not low. And the fact that his K’s basically equalled his BB’s over that stretch don’t inspire a lot of confidence. They are actually very similar, but with Ponson getting more GB’s and fewer FB’s than Duckworth.
The immoderate moderator
Time for an sneak peak of my tRA projection ""system"
Whereas most projection systems takes Marcel as their baseline, the Crude and Rough Assessment of PItchers (or CRAP) takes Marcel as it’s ideal — since I’m working without components, it’s unlikely it will ever be as good as Marcel. Nonetheless, like Marcel, it’s a wegihted average that incorporates regression to the mean, using the tRA rate stat (tRA* already incorporates some regression, so it would be redundant). I actually feel pretty good about it, given my knowledge of tihngs. I haven’t added age adjustments in yet, but I did get some nice IP/GS stuff out of it for rough RAR/WAR stuff, and one nice thing about Stat Corner separating league for starters and relievers is that it makes it regression to “more similar” groups (in this case, just starters, not them together) a bit simpler…
Anyway, here are the preliminary CRAP results for 2009 tRA’s for some of our favorites. There are three numbers for each listed pitcher.
*The first number is the projected tRA.
*The second is the pitcher win% assuming last season’s AL run environiment. .370 is replacement level for the AL, although some just use .380 for both leagues.
*The third number is the “reliability score,” which is based on how much regression to the mean is involved — the more regression to the mean (rather than the pitcher’s own stas) is part of the projection, the less reliable the projection is. Don’t take these reliability number’s to mean anything in themselves (liek a percent chance the projection is “good,”), but rather a relative measure of how reliable the projections are in relation to each other.
This is just me goofing around last week, if people want more, maybe I’ll do more. I projected most of the Royals starters, but I’ll stick with the few at issue here. Remember that tRA is on an RA scale, so the numbers will be higher than the ERA/FIP numbers you’re used to seeing.
Sidney Ponson 5.67 tRA, .413 win, .489 Rel.
Bannister 5.61 tRA, .418 win, .585 Rel.
Davies 5.59 tRA, .420 win, .544 Rel.
HoRam 5.87 tRA, .397 win, .401 Rel.
Hochevar 5.02 tRA, .471 win%, .334 Rel.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 29, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
So you think Ponson should be our ace, right?
Higher tRA wins!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I wouldn't mind Ponson in the rotation to start the year
He was okay in the “innings eater”/ #5 type guy role last year in New York. I guess it just depends on Sid. Does he realize that this may be his last chance? Or is he going to be a fat, lazy D-bag all his life? If he wants it bad enough, the guy may be a pleasant surprise (at least for a while). After all, he really can pitch when he wants to.
Yes, I'm still alive. Sorry to disappoint you.
[insert joke about how appropriate innings "eater" is as a description of Ponson]
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 29, 2009 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions
The good news with Ponson
…is that if he’s lazy, not working hard, not giving 100%, and thus performing badly, he’ll be on a short leash. It’s not like they are in love with him.
The immoderate moderator
And I would guess an even shorter leash than Tomko. They thought enough of Tomko to get him a $3M guaranteed contract. They thought enough of Ponson to give him a minor league contract, and he’ll get a prorated portion of league minimum for any time he spends in the majors. With such a small investment (and depth with similarly projected pitchers like Hochevar, Bannister, Duckworth and HoRam), even if they try him out in some regular season games, there won’t be much interest in sticking with him long if he pitches poorly.
The immoderate moderator
Yeah, Ponson should have a pretty short leash
HoRam may have a slightly longer one though – especially due to the lack of LHP
But I don't think their fetish for a LHP is going to overcome poor performances
If he sucks in April, he won’t last long into May.
The immoderate moderator
I just don’t want to see Ponson pitching in the home opener. It’s my first time going to a home opener and I’m a lot less excited hearing that Ponson is on schedule to be the starter there (also according to the dutton article).
FWIW
And probably nothing, but I was watching Frank Boal’s sportscast Sunday night, and almost threw up when he said Ponson was the probable starter for the home opener.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Maybe the bigger question is this:
Who would you rather have in the rotation? Bannister, HoRam, or Ponson?
Meche, Grienke, Davies, and Hochevar I think are locks.
Everyone's recruits look better than ours.
I don't think Hochevar is necessarily a lock
I think he’s likely the best pitcher of the four right now, but I don’t think it’s by that much, and I don’t think starting him in Omaha with HoRam or Bannister in his spot would be totally unreasonable. He never did prove he could pitch well in the minors, and to date, he hasn’t pitched especially well in the majors.
Not according to Dutton..
Battling for the 25th spot with Jamey Wright.
Go Royals!
Jamey Wright
Is honestly not a terrible choice. Especially if you had a good fielding infield. Which we don’t.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Ponson and Ho-Ram
will break camp as the #4 and #5 starters….and that’s scary as hell!
yup
so much for the “solid pitching” I thought the Royals had going into the season
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 30, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
The 4 and 5 starters are all that's really important when determining the quality of a pitching staff
Or are they? You like numbers. Calculate the difference in projected team RA with those two in the 4 and 5 spot as compared to any other two pitchers competing for those spots. Do they by themselves prevent the Royals from having ‘solid’ pitching? Are their projections much worse than Bannister and Hochevar? And then figure in the fact that if they don’t pitch well, they won’t stay in those roles all sason.
That doesn’t mean these are wise choices. But your statement seemed more than a little off.
The immoderate moderator
let me rephrase
I made the wrong point, and I’m wrong in the sense you said. You are correct about that. What I meant to say (but didn’t say it, for some reason) was that despite the Royals having a decent, average-ish group of starters going into the season, somehow they are going to end up with a worse back end of the rotation than they could have had.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 30, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
worse back end of the rotation than they could have had
d_f, when you say that, do you mean amongst the players ON the roster or in camp OR do you mean including other pitchers that you feel we could have acquired?
Regarding pitchers ON the team, I’ve agreed with many of you here that it makes little sense to have the urgency to have a lefty starter seemingly regardless of whether he’s also in the top 5 contenders by skills/performance. I also think we should go to season with Hochevar but some have made the argument that we should send him down for economic reasons – I think you may have made that argument too but not sure. But, anyway, sending Che down for that reason also deprives us of one of our better options and thereby contributes directly to making our back end worse.
Just trying to understand. What do you wish the rotation to be?
The General Theory of Royaltivity
d_f, when you say that, do you mean amongst the players ON the roster or in camp OR do you mean including other pitchers that you feel we could have acquired?
D_f can answer this for himself, but I’m pretty sure he means that the Royals could do better than Ponson and HoRam among the various pitchers on the roster. The projections (especially if you adjust HoRam for being a starter instead of a reliever, and if you go deeper into batted ball data, as tRA does) have Hochevar and Bannister performing better than Ponson and HoRam.
It is certainly defensible to send Hochevar down to Omaha for a month or two to make certain that the Royals will have an additional year of service time (and likely a more important year than 2009) from him. But at the same time it is questionable that this is the best way to develop Hochevar. Is he going to learn how to get major league hitters out by facing more minor league hitters? However the service time issue really is significant. But I don’t see any good argument for starting HoRam or Ponson over Bannister. Bannister may well fail in 2009. But the Royals need to figure out how good or bad Bannister is. He’ll be making more millions next year in arbitration. So let’s figure out if he’s worth it or if he’s a bust. He certainly has more upside than HoRam and Ponson. So let’s explore that upside and not waste starts on known mediocrities. If he starts for a few months and pitches like crap, then demote him or move him to the bullpen and then you can let some other place filler start (Duckworth, HoRam, J. Wright, whoever).
My rotation would be:
Greinke
Meche
Davies
Hochevar
Bannister
But I wouldn’t be upset with Hochevar spending a month or two in Omaha for the above reason. In that case, I don’t much care who the fifth starter would be. Put the various names in a hat and draw one. Then, put him on a short leash and if he fails, draw another name out of the hat.
The immoderate moderator
OK
I know you’ve had that position on Banny for some time. I admit to being very shaky on him myself and fear he is a fail. But, I’m fine with going with him rather than HoRam. I still just don’t get that one at all.
If I was “in charge” I’d have a hard time sending Hochevar down right now. I’d be more in favor of sending Banny down BUT I also fear there’s actually little point in sending him down for the service time argument.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
'Known mediocrities'--nice phrase. Definition of DM's tenure. Along with 'unknown mediocrities.'
by Steve Hovley on Mar 31, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmm
Well, I don’t know if it defines his tenure, but it defines many of his FA signings and too many of his moves which directly affect the 25-man roster. Thankfully he’s done better than that with trades and much better than that through the draft and with Latin American signings.
The immoderate moderator
Honestly
John Bale. Not cause I think he’s great, but because I think he sucks less than those three.
I like Banny, but I think he needs to work out some kinks in Omaha.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Not very fair
to Bannister, Hochevar, and Ramirez, to just give it to Ponson.
Even if 2 out of the 3 have been brutal.
by Royal from Queens on Mar 29, 2009 4:21 PM EDT reply actions
The way the schedule lines up
they only need a 5th starter twice in April. The 2nd time they need him he will start to get a regular turn after that. My guess is Hochevar goes to Omaha, Ponson starts game 3 giving Davies the home opener, Banny is AAA, HoRam is bullpen/spot starter until we need #5. Then if HoRam is that bad, we bring back Banny in April and then Hochevar if Banny/Ponson/Davies struggle.
Just heard Ryan on 810 at lunch
and while he was by no means saying he “knew” something, he did say he thought that Ponson and Ramirez would be in the rotation, with Hochevar and Bannister going to Omaha.
Surely he has as much insight on which direction Hillman and Moore are leaning as anybody else.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
The last thing we need are more old mediocre pitchers
Hochevar should definitely be in the rotation; if we don’t pitch him now, how’s he going to either a) get any better or b) prove he can’t handle the big leagues. I say we move Banny to middle relief and use HoRam as number five until he gets lit up for a 6.5 ERA after nine games. Then I guess it’s Ponson for a few weeks until he gets lit up for 7.25 and a 1.7 WHIP, and then we go with somebody like Carlos Rosa, who we probably should have gone with in the first place. Of course, we could always make Soria a starter, but that would make too much sense.
Hey, I’m still optimistic. Prozack is a damn good pitcher, Meche is a complete professional, and I think Davies is going to be pretty good. That means we have a solid chance to win three out of every five games, and HoRam or Sir Sid might get lucky occasionally and last six innings giving up just three runs, giving us a slight chance in two of every five. Of course, if we made Soria a starter, all our rotation problems would be solved, but then Hillman would make Farnsy the closer and some serious bullpen problems would begin.
I sure hope Bannister comes back and pitches like a decent #4 starter. Hey, it could happen.
It's pronounced Poo-ZHOLS in Catalan.
What I really hope happens
We acquire someone caught in a roster crunch. Angel Guzman, Chad Gaudin, Jeff Niemann, Yusmeiro Petit could be dealt.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Niemann or Petit
would be lovely. Petit’s problem is HR, and Royals stadium should really help
Mourning Guy Carbonneau...
Royals obscure player to watch in ST: Lenny DiNardo
by playingwithfire on Mar 30, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
According to 610's Greg Schaum
Luke Hochevar has been told to head to Omaha.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Grandstand: Crunch time in September arrives again
- Hello, Bourjos: Angels rookie plays it fast on both sides of ball
- An off-the-wall take on why the Twins will make the World Series
- John Lindsey couldn't have come any closer to his first at-bat
- The Juice: Swisher ends Orioles sweep dreams with timely homer
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
