by Grain of Salt
The Royals aren't venturing much capital and are offering zero commitment to pudgy pitcher Sidney Ponson, so the risk part of yesterday's signing is pretty much nill. As for the reward part ... I'm not seeing it. This Ponson business is a waste of time and, as we all know, time is worth something in and of itself. The philosophy behind this kind of signing is sound enough. You sign up a previously successful player for little money to find out if their is a significant portion of that past productivity that can be recovered. The problem in this case is that Ponson was never really that good in the first place.
If the Royals don't have better in-house options than this, then KC is in trouble already. However, I don't believe that's the case.
Remember 2003, the year the Royals shocked the baseball world and led the AL Central by seven games at the All-Star break? Doesn't that seem like a long time ago? Well, that season was second --- and last -- good season Sidney Ponson had on the mound. He pitched well enough for the Orioles in 2003 that when the trade deadline approached, he was actually one of the more sought-after players on the market. It was his moment in the sun. Ponson's acquisition by the Giants was designed to help San Francisco get the World Series title that the came so close to winning the year before. At the time of the trade, the Giants had all but sewn up another NL West crown.
Ponson pitched well for San Francisco, capping a career season. However, his primary purpose in Frisco was to win in the postseason. He made one start in the division series against the Marlins, giving up seven hits and four runs in five innings as the Giants lost the game 9-5 and the series 3-1. After the season, the Giants were so impressed by Ponson's contribution that they failed to offer him arbitration and allowed him to return to Baltimore without getting any draft picks in return.
Since then, Ponson has posted the following ERA+ figures: 87, 69, 71, 63, 88. (ERA+ is a pitcher's ERA, adjust for ballpark and compared to the league average. 100 is exactly average. These figures can be found at baseball-reference.com) Of the 117 pitchers that have compiled at least 600 innings over the last six seasons, only six have been worse than Ponson. Ponson's stuff is not near what it was in his prime. These days, he strikes out less than half a better per inning. Instead, he relies on inducing groundballs and working the edges, hoping to take advantage of batter impatience. That description makes him a poor match for the Royals, who figure to have subpar infield defense.
Of course, that's also the general description of Luke Hochevar's approach. However, Hochevar has a better strikeout rate and is young enough that you can hope for further growth in that area. Hochevar is also an even more extreme groundballer. If you have one guy like that in the rotation, than you can employ a quasi-platoon where you beef up the infield glovework on Hochevar's day. If you have two such pitchers, then you're talking about giving up too much offense in order to design a lineup around a pitcher's style. It's not a good fit in terms of talent or style and the guy's got a crap attitude to boot.
All in all, it doesn't matter all that much. Ponson will not make the opening day roster. He'll go to Omaha, get hammered, and if he ends up taking a turn or two for the big-league Royals, it'll be because of a rash of injuries, in which case KC will be sunk anyway. For whatever reason, Ponson's name still has a measure of cachet. The reason for that is a mystery to me. Just don't get too excited by the Royals' signing of Sir Sidney. It's a non sequitur. If he's not on the big-league roster by May 15, Ponson can walk. By then, it's almost certain that KC will be glad to hold the door open for him.
If the Royals don't have better in-house options than this, then KC is in trouble already. However, I don't believe that's the case.
Remember 2003, the year the Royals shocked the baseball world and led the AL Central by seven games at the All-Star break? Doesn't that seem like a long time ago? Well, that season was second --- and last -- good season Sidney Ponson had on the mound. He pitched well enough for the Orioles in 2003 that when the trade deadline approached, he was actually one of the more sought-after players on the market. It was his moment in the sun. Ponson's acquisition by the Giants was designed to help San Francisco get the World Series title that the came so close to winning the year before. At the time of the trade, the Giants had all but sewn up another NL West crown.
Ponson pitched well for San Francisco, capping a career season. However, his primary purpose in Frisco was to win in the postseason. He made one start in the division series against the Marlins, giving up seven hits and four runs in five innings as the Giants lost the game 9-5 and the series 3-1. After the season, the Giants were so impressed by Ponson's contribution that they failed to offer him arbitration and allowed him to return to Baltimore without getting any draft picks in return.
Since then, Ponson has posted the following ERA+ figures: 87, 69, 71, 63, 88. (ERA+ is a pitcher's ERA, adjust for ballpark and compared to the league average. 100 is exactly average. These figures can be found at baseball-reference.com) Of the 117 pitchers that have compiled at least 600 innings over the last six seasons, only six have been worse than Ponson. Ponson's stuff is not near what it was in his prime. These days, he strikes out less than half a better per inning. Instead, he relies on inducing groundballs and working the edges, hoping to take advantage of batter impatience. That description makes him a poor match for the Royals, who figure to have subpar infield defense.
Of course, that's also the general description of Luke Hochevar's approach. However, Hochevar has a better strikeout rate and is young enough that you can hope for further growth in that area. Hochevar is also an even more extreme groundballer. If you have one guy like that in the rotation, than you can employ a quasi-platoon where you beef up the infield glovework on Hochevar's day. If you have two such pitchers, then you're talking about giving up too much offense in order to design a lineup around a pitcher's style. It's not a good fit in terms of talent or style and the guy's got a crap attitude to boot.
All in all, it doesn't matter all that much. Ponson will not make the opening day roster. He'll go to Omaha, get hammered, and if he ends up taking a turn or two for the big-league Royals, it'll be because of a rash of injuries, in which case KC will be sunk anyway. For whatever reason, Ponson's name still has a measure of cachet. The reason for that is a mystery to me. Just don't get too excited by the Royals' signing of Sir Sidney. It's a non sequitur. If he's not on the big-league roster by May 15, Ponson can walk. By then, it's almost certain that KC will be glad to hold the door open for him.
Originally Published at:
http://uponfurtherreview.kansascity.com/?q=node/744
0 comments:
Post a Comment