SuperSteve Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 I want Colon back here next year. Thats my Christmas present. I want some clothes and money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Here's what I do with Buehrle if I am the Sox. Offer him 4 years, $30 million. (that way we can at least keep him an additional season past his service time) 2004: $5 mil 2005: $7 mil 2006: $8 mil 2007: $10 mil If they offer that, I am pretty positive he'd sign. But knowing our owner, we'd never offer anything that great to Mark B. They tried to get him to give up a year of free agency last year. He said no. I don't remember the $$... but I don't think that was the deal breaker. I'm pretty sure it was the FA issue. The extra year of FA wasn't even the big thing. There was a big chunk of the money that wasn't guarenteed, and was a team only option. Which raises the question, why not a guarantee on the money? Just because he is a pitcher? They surely have no problem giving guaranteed deals to Konerko, Maggs, etc. If Konerko's money would have been incentive based, he woulda made about 10 cents last season. But instead they are going to let their young ace get away because they won't guarantee the money or shell out a big contract. Indians have Sabathia signed to a deal, A's have Zito with a deal, yet the Sox will be going to arbitration with Buehrle. Is something wrong with this picture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Here's what I do with Buehrle if I am the Sox. Offer him 4 years, $30 million. (that way we can at least keep him an additional season past his service time) 2004: $5 mil 2005: $7 mil 2006: $8 mil 2007: $10 mil If they offer that, I am pretty positive he'd sign. But knowing our owner, we'd never offer anything that great to Mark B. They tried to get him to give up a year of free agency last year. He said no. I don't remember the $$... but I don't think that was the deal breaker. I'm pretty sure it was the FA issue. The extra year of FA wasn't even the big thing. There was a big chunk of the money that wasn't guarenteed, and was a team only option. Which raises the question, why not a guarantee on the money? Just because he is a pitcher? They surely have no problem giving guaranteed deals to Konerko, Maggs, etc. If Konerko's money would have been incentive based, he woulda made about 10 cents last season. But instead they are going to let their young ace get away because they won't guarantee the money or shell out a big contract. Indians have Sabathia signed to a deal, A's have Zito with a deal, yet the Sox will be going to arbitration with Buehrle. Is something wrong with this picture? Two words. Jaime Navarro. But seriously, this team is paranoid of signing pitchers long term, and if you think about it, what if we had been on the hook for contracts to guys like Jack McDowell, Wilson Alvarez, Alex Fernandez, and/or Roberto Hernandez. We would be the Detroit Tigers right now handicapped by horrible contracts. The problem is since we have a small budget mentality, we have to be ultracareful about who we give long term deals to. That being said, I want to see something get done with Mark, but I am not holding my breath either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Godfather Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 IMHO we should hold off on giving MB a contract till after this upcoming season reasoning being we have a very limited amount of money to spend and with some of the glaring holes we have we need to spend money elsewhere in order to contend. If we can contend and make the playoff next year we should then be able to spend some more money on player and then award MB for his hard work. In the real world though I just dont see MB signing any long term deals to stay here, I think he is just killing time until he is free to sign with the cards just MPO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Here's what I do with Buehrle if I am the Sox. Offer him 4 years, $30 million. (that way we can at least keep him an additional season past his service time) 2004: $5 mil 2005: $7 mil 2006: $8 mil 2007: $10 mil If they offer that, I am pretty positive he'd sign. But knowing our owner, we'd never offer anything that great to Mark B. They tried to get him to give up a year of free agency last year. He said no. I don't remember the $$... but I don't think that was the deal breaker. I'm pretty sure it was the FA issue. The extra year of FA wasn't even the big thing. There was a big chunk of the money that wasn't guarenteed, and was a team only option. Which raises the question, why not a guarantee on the money? Just because he is a pitcher? They surely have no problem giving guaranteed deals to Konerko, Maggs, etc. If Konerko's money would have been incentive based, he woulda made about 10 cents last season. But instead they are going to let their young ace get away because they won't guarantee the money or shell out a big contract. Indians have Sabathia signed to a deal, A's have Zito with a deal, yet the Sox will be going to arbitration with Buehrle. Is something wrong with this picture? Two words. Jaime Navarro. But seriously, this team is paranoid of signing pitchers long term, and if you think about it, what if we had been on the hook for contracts to guys like Jack McDowell, Wilson Alvarez, Alex Fernandez, and/or Roberto Hernandez. We would be the Detroit Tigers right now handicapped by horrible contracts. The problem is since we have a small budget mentality, we have to be ultracareful about who we give long term deals to. That being said, I want to see something get done with Mark, but I am not holding my breath either. While I see your point 2k4, Mark Buehrle is certainly no Jamie Navarro.... The busts have outnumbered the successes for the Sox, but you can't just let Buehrle get away. I, like many, tend to believe he is special and with the way he throws and changes speed to get people out rather than relying on heat and a bunch of junk, shouldn't be worried about arm problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 It's funny how they'll dish out all that money for Koch or Konerko yet when it comes to their young STUDS like Buehrle they are greedy as hell. JR has repeatedly stated in the press that he will not sign pitchers long term. The contract offered to MB last season was so full of deferments, loopholes, and incentives, that I don't blame MB one bit for refusing to sign that piece of garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Ponson just scares me. After reading about the O's stacking him against 4th and 5th starters to inflate his numbers all year, and then watching him choke at the end of the year, I just get the fear that we would be looking at Todd Ritchie part 2. Will you quit spewing this BS southsider? The ONLY stat affected by stacking a pitcher against other teams 4 and 5 starters is wins, which is a stat determined by the entire teams performance to begin with. Is Ponson's ERA, hits, BB, SO, HR, ect. any better(or worse) because he faced other teams #4 or #5's? Of course not, so use some common sense and pull your head out of you ass. If you want to take away a few wins because he faced #4 or $5 starters then you better do the same for Loaiza as well. Over the course of a season the pitching rotations get mixed up AND rarely to you get TRUE #1 facing off. Only a handful of times do managers actually set their rotations over the course of a season, so please stop using this lame excuse because it holds no water. Compare Ponson's numbers to Colon's number and you will see that they are almost identical. The only difference between the 2 of them is that Colon has been more consistant throughout his career, however, you have to remember that Ponson is still fairly young(27), has seen his numbers improve the past 2 years, and has been pretty consistant the past 2 year(4.09 ERA in 2002 and 3.75 ERA in 2003). For 6-7M/yr he would be a great option and probably put up similar numbers to Colon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Will you quit spewing this BS southsider? The ONLY stat affected by stacking a pitcher against other teams 4 and 5 starters is wins, which is a stat determined by the entire teams performance to begin with. Is Ponson's ERA, hits, BB, SO, HR, ect. any better(or worse) because he faced other teams #4 or #5's? Of course not, so use some common sense and pull your head out of you ass. If you want to take away a few wins because he faced #4 or $5 starters then you better do the same for Loaiza as well. Over the course of a season the pitching rotations get mixed up AND rarely to you get TRUE #1 facing off. Only a handful of times do managers actually set their rotations over the course of a season, so please stop using this lame excuse because it holds no water. Compare Ponson's numbers to Colon's number and you will see that they are almost identical. The only difference between the 2 of them is that Colon has been more consistant throughout his career, however, you have to remember that Ponson is still fairly young(27), has seen his numbers improve the past 2 years, and has been pretty consistant the past 2 year(4.09 ERA in 2002 and 3.75 ERA in 2003). For 6-7M/yr he would be a great option and probably put up similar numbers to Colon. LMAO. Geez Sidney did I hit a nerve? The guy has been in the league 6 years and has won more than 12 games one time. And if you don't think Loz's number's weren't extremely padded by going against 4 and 5 starters for the first two months of the year, look at his first and second half splits. His numbers are way worse in the 2nd half when he was at the top of the rotation, instead of the bottom. The last time I heard this similarity arugement was between Jaime Navarro and Alex Fernandez, and we all know how that went. Comparing a guy coming off a career year to a guy coming off of an average year and having them come up about equal should say something. We also made the same arguements for Todd Ritchie about him being young, and his numbers improving as he came through. And we all know how that turned out. And his career best single season era was a quarter run better than Ponsons was. But what do I know, I just have my head up my ass... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 But what do I know, I just have my head up my ass... Yet again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 But what do I know, I just have my head up my ass... Yet again! Listen peanut gallery, don't make me come up there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 LMAO. Geez Sidney did I hit a nerve? Oh no you don't... Don't go being sarcastic with Sid's name. Besides, he's on vacation with his family right now and not surfing the net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Oh no you don't... Don't go being sarcastic with Sid's name. Besides, he's on vacation with his family right now and not surfing the net. Maybe I should have used green, but I couldn't resist. BTW check your PM's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 But what do I know, I just have my head up my ass... Yet again! Listen peanut gallery, don't make me come up there I ain't afraid o' you! I probably outweigh you by 75 pounds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 But what do I know, I just have my head up my ass... Yet again! Listen peanut gallery, don't make me come up there I ain't afraid o' you! I probably outweigh you by 75 pounds! You're just lucky I don't have an ID for that building anymore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 "The guy has been in the league 6 years and has won more than 12 games one time." Come on southsider, I know you are smarter then this. Using wins to determine how good a pitcher is EXTREMELY flawed. That is your first mistake. Wins are determined by the team. Things like run support, defense, bullpen pitching, ect. go into a win and these are things that the starting pitcher has no control over, yet you deem it an accurate stat to make a judgement on a pitcher? Use common sense buddy. Do you think it is a coincidence that most of the leaders in wins are among the league leaders in run support(something they have no control over). That is why the fact that Ponson pitched against other teams bottom of the rotation pitchers has absolutely no reliavance in determining how good a pitcher he is. "And if you don't think Loz's number's weren't extremely padded by going against 4 and 5 starters for the first two months of the year, look at his first and second half splits." He won 11 games in the 1st half with 19 starts and won 10 games in the 2nd half with 15 starts. Maybe you should check the splits before you throw out statements that you claim are true but aren't. BUSTED. "His numbers are way worse in the 2nd half when he was at the top of the rotation, instead of the bottom." And you honestly think that was because he faced more front of the rotation starter? Good luck proving that when it is the opposing offense that is responsible for the numbers that a pitcher puts up. Face it you have nothing to support your arguement that being at the front of the rotation has any affect on any stat besides wins and loses. Please use common sense so I don't have to explain things to you like you are a 10 year old kid. Your better then that southsider. "The last time I heard this similarity arugement was between Jaime Navarro and Alex Fernandez, and we all know how that went." Navarro's and Fernandez's numbers had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with where they pitched in the rotation and EVERYTHING to do with their stuff, how opposing offenses did against them, and injuries. Why can't you grasp the simple concept that it is the opposing offense that is responsible for the pitchers ERA, hits, BB, SO, HR, ect. and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the pitcher they are facing. "Comparing a guy coming off a career year to a guy coming off of an average year and having them come up about equal should say something." Ponson isn't coming off a career year. A career year is a season that far exceeds any previous seasons. The fact that Ponson posted a very solid 4.09 ERA in 2002 shows that his 3.75 ERA in 2003 isn't a fluke/career year. He has been extremely consistant over the past 2 years, and based on the normal progress of a young pitcher there is no reason to believe that similar numbers aren't in the near future. "We also made the same arguements for Todd Ritchie about him being young, and his numbers improving as he came through." Have you ever taken a look at Ritchie's stats? To begin with he was 29 when the Sox traded for him and was a career minor league till he was 26. His numbers improved? How does an ERA of 3.50 in 99, 4.81 in 00, and 4.47 in 01 show improvement. I am sorry but you have to improve more then 1 year before you can make the arguement that he had improved. Furthermore his 99 ERA of 3.50 WAS a career year unlike Ponson, considering that it was .97 lower then his next lowest ERA. He also showed no consistancy. The previous 2 years(before coming to the Sox) he averaged an ERA of 4.63 in the NL opposed to Ponson who averaged an ERA of 3.90 in the AL over the past 2 years. I was opposed to the Ritchie trade from the beginning and these are things that I brought up about Ritchie right after the trade occured. Ritchie was anything but young, consistant, talented, or proven. So that makes your Ritchie comparison a terrible comparison that holds no water. In a perfect world the Sox would use the 12M they offered Colon and sign Ponson(7M) and Batista(5M). That would give the Sox an extremely talanted starting pitching rotation that would be better then the 2003 rotation and keep the Sox in the race even if they have to trade 1 or 2 big offensive players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 "The guy has been in the league 6 years and has won more than 12 games one time." Come on southsider, I know you are smarter then this. Using wins to determine how good a pitcher is EXTREMELY flawed. That is your first mistake. Wins are determined by the team. Things like run support, defense, bullpen pitching, ect. go into a win and these are things that the starting pitcher has no control over, yet you deem it an accurate stat to make a judgement on a pitcher? Use common sense buddy. Do you think it is a coincidence that most of the leaders in wins are among the league leaders in run support(something they have no control over). That is why the fact that Ponson pitched against other teams bottom of the rotation pitchers has absolutely no reliavance in determining how good a pitcher he is. "And if you don't think Loz's number's weren't extremely padded by going against 4 and 5 starters for the first two months of the year, look at his first and second half splits." He won 11 games in the 1st half with 19 starts and won 10 games in the 2nd half with 15 starts. Maybe you should check the splits before you throw out statements that you claim are true but aren't. BUSTED. "His numbers are way worse in the 2nd half when he was at the top of the rotation, instead of the bottom." And you honestly think that was because he faced more front of the rotation starter? Good luck proving that when it is the opposing offense that is responsible for the numbers that a pitcher puts up. Face it you have nothing to support your arguement that being at the front of the rotation has any affect on any stat besides wins and loses. Please use common sense so I don't have to explain things to you like you are a 10 year old kid. Your better then that southsider. "The last time I heard this similarity arugement was between Jaime Navarro and Alex Fernandez, and we all know how that went." Navarro's and Fernandez's numbers had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with where they pitched in the rotation and EVERYTHING to do with their stuff, how opposing offenses did against them, and injuries. Why can't you grasp the simple concept that it is the opposing offense that is responsible for the pitchers ERA, hits, BB, SO, HR, ect. and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the pitcher they are facing. "Comparing a guy coming off a career year to a guy coming off of an average year and having them come up about equal should say something." Ponson isn't coming off a career year. A career year is a season that far exceeds any previous seasons. The fact that Ponson posted a very solid 4.09 ERA in 2002 shows that his 3.75 ERA in 2003 isn't a fluke/career year. He has been extremely consistant over the past 2 years, and based on the normal progress of a young pitcher there is no reason to believe that similar numbers aren't in the near future. "We also made the same arguements for Todd Ritchie about him being young, and his numbers improving as he came through." Have you ever taken a look at Ritchie's stats? To begin with he was 29 when the Sox traded for him and was a career minor league till he was 26. His numbers improved? How does an ERA of 3.50 in 99, 4.81 in 00, and 4.47 in 01 show improvement. I am sorry but you have to improve more then 1 year before you can make the arguement that he had improved. Furthermore his 99 ERA of 3.50 WAS a career year unlike Ponson, considering that it was .97 lower then his next lowest ERA. He also showed no consistancy. The previous 2 years(before coming to the Sox) he averaged an ERA of 4.63 in the NL opposed to Ponson who averaged an ERA of 3.90 in the AL over the past 2 years. I was opposed to the Ritchie trade from the beginning and these are things that I brought up about Ritchie right after the trade occured. Ritchie was anything but young, consistant, talented, or proven. So that makes your Ritchie comparison a terrible comparison that holds no water. In a perfect world the Sox would use the 12M they offered Colon and sign Ponson(7M) and Batista(5M). That would give the Sox an extremely talanted starting pitching rotation that would be better then the 2003 rotation and keep the Sox in the race even if they have to trade 1 or 2 big offensive players. Damn dude, first of all learn to use the quote function. Your post is a garbled mess. Second of all, why is this so f***ing personal to you? Ponson's wins have everything to do with where he was pitching in the rotation. He didn't win anything until the Orioles rigged his starts to be against inferior opponents so that his trade value would escalate, because he had already turned down a 3 year $21 million offer. You ignored the parts of the post that pointed that out ways that he had been pitching to lessor competition. His era was a product of not pitching against the Yankees and Red Sox (who kicked his ass), but of pitching on the road in bigger ballparks, against inferior opponents less apt to beat him. As for Loiaza how the f*** are you going to tell me that wins are a flawed stat when I use them to talk about Ponson but quote wins in the very next f***ing paragraph??? What kind of bulls*** is that? At least have the decency to live up to your own f***ing arguements! As to Fernandez and Navarro that was an example of taking a pitcher coming off of a career year and comparing him to someone who had a consistant career. I never said anything about when and where they pitched. Don't put words in my mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Alright kids.. And Mike.. you better stop talking s*** about Sidney.. or else!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Ponson would be an EXCELLENT pick up for the White Sox. He's 27 and just coming into his prime, he's a very good competitor too. A bulldog. I, for one, would consider it a very good offseason if signing him gets done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsh Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Ponson's wins have everything to do with where he was pitching in the rotation. it's too bad that he's mucking up his argument with personal jabs because it is a very good argument. i think the crux of his argument is that you shouldn't base a pitcher's worth on his win total because it is heavily based on run support and luck. i think that your statement quoted above is one that we all agree on. his loaiza comment about wins was that he was using your own argument against you. you said that loaiza had a bad second half, but his half splits on wins would suggest he had a better second half. i think if you take into account that colon pitched for the indians with an explosive offense, and that ponson, i believe, has been with baltimore during some very lean years, i think that ponson at 7 mil is a better value than colon at 12 mil. although having both would be nice. we should be able to make our arguments without the personal jabs though. it makes it alot easier to see the other person's side, and even (god forbid) admit your wrong, if it is presented without the insults. edit: sorry about the horrible formatting, i don't know how that happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 "Damn dude, first of all learn to use the quote function. Your post is a garbled mess. Second of all, why is this so f***ing personal to you?" The first sign of someone without anything logical to say. When people start attacking the person or the way they present their ideas it shows that they have little to say about their actual points. Its not personal, I just hate when people throw out common sense and come up with some BS idea that has no logic/stats/evidence/ect. to support their BS points. You are better then that. Using solely wins to judge how good a pitcher is shows a lack of common sense on your behalf and I know you are better then that. "Ponson's wins have everything to do with where he was pitching in the rotation." No it doesn't. If you honest think where a pitcher pitches in the rotation is more important then HOW THEY PITCH, than you have no understanding of pitching. HOW THEY PITCH is BY FAR the most important thing in determining wins, and this is supported by the strong correlation between wins and ERA. There is absolutely nothing that supports your theory of where a pitcher pitches in the rotation has the greatest affect on wins, partly because too much interpretation is needed to accurately classify starters in the rotation(and it still leaves a TON of interpretation and arguement). "He didn't win anything until the Orioles rigged his starts to be against inferior opponents so that his trade value would escalate, because he had already turned down a 3 year $21 million offer" He didn't win many games before last season for 2 reasons. 1) The most important reason that he had never won more then 12 games in a year before 2003 was the fact that only in 1 season did he post an ERA below 4.71. This goes with the away statement about the strong correlation between wins and ERA, which supports my idea that HOW YOU PITCH is far more important then WHERE YOU PITCH IN THE ROTATION, which has NOTHING to support it. 2) He plays for Baltimore!!! You don't think he would have won more games if he pitched for the Yankees opposed to Baltimore(assuming his numbers are the same). This only further supports the idea that wins are a terrible judge of talent because the team you play for often affects your win total. Not once since he was in Baltimore have they had a winning season. This goes back to me idea of factors that the pitcher can't control: run support, defense, bullpen pitchings, ect. all areas that Baltimore has struggled in since Ponson has been in Baltimore and that drastic affect his win total. "His era was a product of not pitching against the Yankees and Red Sox (who kicked his ass), but of pitching on the road in bigger ballparks, against inferior opponents less apt to beat him." You have got to be kidding. If this isn't the most ridiculous case of nitpicking then I don't know what is. Not only that, but it simply isn't true. Once again it would help your arguement if you actually checked the stats before throwing out some random statement and calling it fact. The fact is that Ponson had one of the most balanced GS vs opponents in the league. He started against 22 of the 30 total teams, and only had more then 1 start against only 8 teams(one of which just happens to be the Yankees). Nice try though. "As for Loiaza how the f*** are you going to tell me that wins are a flawed stat when I use them to talk about Ponson but quote wins in the very next f***ing paragraph??? What kind of bulls*** is that? At least have the decency to live up to your own f***ing arguements!" Simply to prove you wrong. AT NO POINT do I say that wins are a good stat to make a judgement. I was just pointing out flaws in your agruement, and this case you said that he had fewer wins in the second half because he faced more top of the rotation starters, and I simply showed you that wasn't the case considering his wins remained consistant from the 1st half to the 2nd half. That doesn't mean that I think it is a good judgement, it just means that your statements are flawed and I am trying to help you out considering you are out of your league in this arguement and have nothing to support your BS opinions. "As to Fernandez and Navarro that was an example of taking a pitcher coming off of a career year and comparing him to someone who had a consistant career." And I showed you that last year wasn't a career year for Ponson, so your Fernandez and Navarro comparison holds no water. That was my point. "Don't put words in my mouth." Ditto...please see you statement where you accuse me of using wins as a good indicator when I was simply correcting your MANY flaws in your statements and use of stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 The first sign of someone without anything logical to say. When people start attacking the person or the way they present their ideas it shows that they have little to say about their actual points. Okay, I will say it. It's nothign personal, but your long posts are a pain in the ass to read. The quote function would be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Don't have the source article, just heard Sportscenter say so. Petitte is not gonna agree to a contract with the Yanks, and will be a FA. I think it's pretty obvious that Andy is goin to the Astros, with the money they just cleared from Wagner. The domino effect could definately be Colon to NYY now. So we better get ready to put the full court press on Sidney Ponson. Ponson is another Navarro waiting to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 I think Ponson would be a nice addition. He would be a solid 3rd Starter after Loaiza and Buehrle. If he could gove us 200 innings and 13-16 wins, he would be a good acquisition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 "Damn dude, first of all learn to use the quote function. Your post is a garbled mess. Second of all, why is this so f***ing personal to you?" The first sign of someone without anything logical to say. When people start attacking the person or the way they present their ideas it shows that they have little to say about their actual points. Its not personal, I just hate when people throw out common sense and come up with some BS idea that has no logic/stats/evidence/ect. to support their BS points. You are better then that. Using solely wins to judge how good a pitcher is shows a lack of common sense on your behalf and I know you are better then that. "Ponson's wins have everything to do with where he was pitching in the rotation." No it doesn't. If you honest think where a pitcher pitches in the rotation is more important then HOW THEY PITCH, than you have no understanding of pitching. HOW THEY PITCH is BY FAR the most important thing in determining wins, and this is supported by the strong correlation between wins and ERA. There is absolutely nothing that supports your theory of where a pitcher pitches in the rotation has the greatest affect on wins, partly because too much interpretation is needed to accurately classify starters in the rotation(and it still leaves a TON of interpretation and arguement). "He didn't win anything until the Orioles rigged his starts to be against inferior opponents so that his trade value would escalate, because he had already turned down a 3 year $21 million offer" He didn't win many games before last season for 2 reasons. 1) The most important reason that he had never won more then 12 games in a year before 2003 was the fact that only in 1 season did he post an ERA below 4.71. This goes with the away statement about the strong correlation between wins and ERA, which supports my idea that HOW YOU PITCH is far more important then WHERE YOU PITCH IN THE ROTATION, which has NOTHING to support it. 2) He plays for Baltimore!!! You don't think he would have won more games if he pitched for the Yankees opposed to Baltimore(assuming his numbers are the same). This only further supports the idea that wins are a terrible judge of talent because the team you play for often affects your win total. Not once since he was in Baltimore have they had a winning season. This goes back to me idea of factors that the pitcher can't control: run support, defense, bullpen pitchings, ect. all areas that Baltimore has struggled in since Ponson has been in Baltimore and that drastic affect his win total. "His era was a product of not pitching against the Yankees and Red Sox (who kicked his ass), but of pitching on the road in bigger ballparks, against inferior opponents less apt to beat him." You have got to be kidding. If this isn't the most ridiculous case of nitpicking then I don't know what is. Not only that, but it simply isn't true. Once again it would help your arguement if you actually checked the stats before throwing out some random statement and calling it fact. The fact is that Ponson had one of the most balanced GS vs opponents in the league. He started against 22 of the 30 total teams, and only had more then 1 start against only 8 teams(one of which just happens to be the Yankees). Nice try though. "As for Loiaza how the f*** are you going to tell me that wins are a flawed stat when I use them to talk about Ponson but quote wins in the very next f***ing paragraph??? What kind of bulls*** is that? At least have the decency to live up to your own f***ing arguements!" Simply to prove you wrong. AT NO POINT do I say that wins are a good stat to make a judgement. I was just pointing out flaws in your agruement, and this case you said that he had fewer wins in the second half because he faced more top of the rotation starters, and I simply showed you that wasn't the case considering his wins remained consistant from the 1st half to the 2nd half. That doesn't mean that I think it is a good judgement, it just means that your statements are flawed and I am trying to help you out considering you are out of your league in this arguement and have nothing to support your BS opinions. "As to Fernandez and Navarro that was an example of taking a pitcher coming off of a career year and comparing him to someone who had a consistant career." And I showed you that last year wasn't a career year for Ponson, so your Fernandez and Navarro comparison holds no water. That was my point. "Don't put words in my mouth." Ditto...please see you statement where you accuse me of using wins as a good indicator when I was simply correcting your MANY flaws in your statements and use of stats. OK Boog/613whatever... I will break this down for you really slow so even you will understand. The Orioles duped many into thinking Ponson was a better pitcher by pitching him in as many ideal situations as possible. It happens all of the time in pro sports today. It's called showcasing an athlete. The fact that he only pitched 3 times against the two best teams in his division only bolsters that arguement. When you have your #1 pitcher you skip your fifth pitcher to make sure that your best is going against the best competition you face. The Orioles did not do this against the AL East with Ponson. He should have faced those teams at least 5 times if not 6 or 7 because they were skipping their bad pitchers to face the divisions elite. Also you would want your best pitcher, going at home in a stadium that is much harder on pitchers, because it gives you the best chance to win. Ponson pitched barely 40% of his games at home. The "how they pitch" arguement is BS. How they pitch doesn't change based on who they pitch against, but the results do. When Ponson can only manage an era of 5 against the Yankees in two starts, and get hammered for an era of almost 20 in the only start of the year against the Red Sox, (not to mention getting hammered in the playoffs, not to mention getting beat up by Atlanta, not pitching against Oakland, and not to mention an era of 6 1/2 against the Twins) it just goes to reason that his mystical 3.75 era would have been much worse if the Orioles had faced him up with the Yanks and Red Sox ( and other division winnters) as often as a #1 pitcher should have been. To quote the fact that he started against 22 different teams only bolsters that arguement because in a day and age when a team plays nearly 50% of their game against one division, The #1 starter should be starting against their own division at least 50% of the time, if not more, because a good manager would be trying harder to beat the teams in his own division! And as for the whole if someone doesn't have something logical to say start attacking... go back and read your first post. How many times did you have put a personal comment in there? You are the one who had to try to make a pissing match to try to look better. If you want to argue the point that is fine, then don't resort to childish name calling, and you won't get it back. It isn't that hard of a concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 "OK Boog/613whatever..." FLAWS...FLAWS...FLAWS...Thats your new nickname considering that you arguement is filled with them and has NO stats/facts/evidence to support your opinions and theories. Whats wrong southsider? Are you going to leave this board like you left the ESPN board because I am picking apart your FLAWED arguements with logic like Boogs did to you at ESPN? "The Orioles duped many into thinking Ponson was a better pitcher by pitching him in as many ideal situations as possible." You keep pointing to this, but you have yet to show anything that supports it. Besides I have already showed you that the only thing that adjusting the rotation does is affect the win total(and it doesn't have a big affect at that). The way he pitches, ie his 3.75 ERA, is BY FAR the biggest reason why he had 17 wins, so quit falling back on this weak theory of yours. "The fact that he only pitched 3 times against the two best teams in his division only bolsters that arguement. When you have your #1 pitcher you skip your fifth pitcher to make sure that your best is going against the best competition you face. The Orioles did not do this against the AL East with Ponson. He should have faced those teams at least 5 times if not 6 or 7 because they were skipping their bad pitchers to face the divisions elite." Please check the stats so you will have a clue about what you are talking about. If Ponson should have had 5,6,7 starts against the teams in the AL EAST, than why did he only have 4 combined starts against the other AL EAST teams(Toronto and Tampa Bay)? The fact that he had starts against 22 of the 30 total teams gives you no logical reason to complain about starting against only weak teams. He faced almost every team in the majors and pitched against no team more then 3 times. Furthermore, 4 of the 8 teams that he faced more then once ranked in the top 12 in overall offense, so the stats don't support your weak offense arguement. Sorry, nice try though. "Also you would want your best pitcher, going at home in a stadium that is much harder on pitchers, because it gives you the best chance to win. Ponson pitched barely 40% of his games at home." Proving you wrong is like taking candy from a baby, all I have to do is check the stats. If you would have checked the stats you would see that Camden Yards ranked 18/30 in runs scored per stadium and Pac Bell ranked 21/30 in runs scored per stadium, which makes both better pitchers park then hitters park. The fact that he only pitched about 40% of his starts at home supports MY ARGUEMENT. Thanks for helping my arguement. My suggestion would be to check the stats next time so you don't end up going against your own arguement, that and it will make it a little harder on me, but like I said proving you wrong is like taking candy from a baby. "The "how they pitch" arguement is BS. How they pitch doesn't change based on who they pitch against, but the results do. When Ponson can only manage an era of 5 against the Yankees in two starts, and get hammered for an era of almost 20 in the only start of the year against the Red Sox, (not to mention getting hammered in the playoffs, not to mention getting beat up by Atlanta, not pitching against Oakland, and not to mention an era of 6 1/2 against the Twins) it just goes to reason that his mystical 3.75 era would have been much worse if the Orioles had faced him up with the Yanks and Red Sox ( and other division winnters) as often as a #1 pitcher should have been. To quote the fact that he started against 22 different teams only bolsters that arguement because in a day and age when a team plays nearly 50% of their game against one division, The #1 starter should be starting against their own division at least 50% of the time, if not more, because a good manager would be trying harder to beat the teams in his own division!" Almost ALL pitchers have terrible ERA's against the top offensive teams in the game. Thats why they are ranked at the top offensively. The fact is that ERA is an average of the good and the bad and accurately and evenly measures both. Is it better to have a terrible ERA against a bad offensive team instead(for example Colon had an ERA of 5.94 against Detriot and because of it was 1-2 against the worst team in baseball) is that any better then having a bad ERA against one of the top offensive teams EVER(Boston)? You are really trying to grasp at straws because you have no logic to support your weak arguement. I showed above that he didn't pitch at the AL EAST powerhouses(Boston and NY) or weaklinks(TB and Toronto) so quit trying to use this weak excuse of an arguement. You above arguement isn't supported by anything. Thats your problem. I have shown you stats to support what most people would consider common sense(for example that ERA is a better indicator of a pitcher then wins and that there is a strong correlation between wins and ERA which explains Ponson's high win total) and what have your shown me? Conspiracy theories with nothing to back them up but your own stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.