NY Post says...

[southsider2k5]

"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.

You really don't get it do you. The reason he pitched against 22 different teams is exactly what I am trying to tell you.

 

BALTIMORE DID NOT WANT PONSON TO PITCH AGAINST GOOD TEAMS

 

There is that hard? When you don't pitch against good teams it is much easier to keep any stat looking better.

 

IT IS MUCH EASIER TO HAVE A PRETTY ERA WHEN YOU DON'T GO AGAINST THE BEST. Where is the "flaw" in that arguement?

 

3 of the 4 teams in the AL East, score tons of runs. As a matter of a fact the Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays were 1-2-3 in RS in the AL. (what was that about flawed stats?) So you can take the Jays out of that whole weak category. Ponson barely ever pitched against them. And that is because, just like you said "Almost ALL pitchers have terrible ERA's against the top offensive teams in the game" Why is it so difficult to understand that you want your best pitchers going against the toughest competition AND the teams in your division which are in direct competition with you. That is why the O's ducking pitching Ponson against them. Once again what is do damned hard about that.

 

BALTIMORE WANTED MAXIMUM VALUE FOR THEIR COMMODITY. Sidney Ponson turned down 3 years for $21 million. So wanting to trade him what do you do, run his numbers into the ground pitching against good teams? No. You try to make him look better than he is so that someone will pay more for him. It is like getting a tune up before you trade in a car. You clean it up and make it look as good as possible so that the dealer will give you more for it. It that complex or something?

 

And BTW looking at runs scored in a stadium is much more indicative of how good of an offensive team that the home team is. Baltimore had a terrible offense, which sure makes the runs scored at Camden Yards go down. I mean geez they were only 10th in runs scored in the AL, could that possibly have anything to do with how many runs get scored at Camden Yards??? (more flawed stats )Camden Yards is a notorious hitters park no matter how bad the Orioles are.

 

You ask what I have shown you? Conspiracy theories? Try common sense. Open your eyes and think outside of your little box. Did you ever play connect the dots as a kid? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. As good as Sidney Ponson was, he will never be that good again. If he had faced real competition he wouldn't have put up anywhere near the numbers he did.

[whitesox61382]

Here are the facts that will finally shut you up with this conspiracy theory.

 

1) The main reason that he had starts against 22 of the 30 teams was because he played in both leagues.

 

2) If you would have checked the schedule you would have seen that Baltimore played 14/19 games against Boston and 16/19 games against NYY AFTER PONSON WAS TRADED TO SAN FRANCISCO. Its hard to pitch against them when you aren't on your team. Ponson pitched 3 of the possible 8 starts against Boston and NYY, but you are right its a big conspiracy. Baltimore knew a few season before 2003 that they were going to trade Ponson so they made sure to schedule all their games against Boston and NYY after the July 31 deadline to hide Ponson's flaws right southsider? You continue to throw statements out that have nothing to support them. Maybe if you would have checked the schedule you would have seen this and quit your b****ing about him never facing NYY or Boston considering he pitched 37.5% of the possible starts against both when he was in Baltimore this year.

 

3) In 13 of Ponson's 31 starts he faced a team that finished in the top 10 in runs scored. For comparison Colon pitched 14 of his 34 starts against a team that finished in the top 10. So if you are going to discredit Ponson's ERA because you feel he hasn't faced/skipped most of the top offenses then you better do the same for Colon considering an equal percentage of both pitchers starts have come against top 10 offenses.

 

4) Finally, here is a list of just some of the pitchers that he went up agianst in 2003: Sabathia, Loaiza, 2 vs Hernandez(from KC in the beginning of the year when he was leading the AL in ERA), Colon, Maddux, Pettite, Clemens, Willis, Schilling, Peavy, Oswalt. Some of the teams he faced didn't have a true ace, so its hard to determine if he went up against their ace. I would say that is a pretty impressive list of opposing pitchers for a guy who Baltimore was pitching against other teams 4th and 5th starters.

 

Here are 4 straight forward facts that are backed up by stats. Opposed to your conspiracy theory that has NO FACTS/STATS/EVIDENCE to support it. I normal don't tell people that they are wrong because they are welcome to their opinion, but the FACTS AND STATS show that Ponson is a very good pitcher, who has pitched against the top offenses, and the top opposing pitchers in the game.

 

"You ask what I have shown you? Conspiracy theories? Try common sense. Open your eyes and think outside of your little box. Did you ever play connect the dots as a kid? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. As good as Sidney Ponson was, he will never be that good again. If he had faced real competition he wouldn't have put up anywhere near the numbers he did."

 

See the above 4 facts and then eat your own chow!!! Damn it hurts to be right all the time. Keep coming up with those conspiracy theories though with nothing to support them it makes for interesting arguements until someone actually brings the facts to your attention.

 

"Baltimore had a terrible offense, which sure makes the runs scored at Camden Yards go down. I mean geez they were only 10th in runs scored in the AL, could that possibly have anything to do with how many runs get scored at Camden Yards??? (more flawed stats )Camden Yards is a notorious hitters park no matter how bad the Orioles are."

 

Camden yards is NOT a great hitters park. It is pretty much right in the middle. Maybe 20 years ago it would have been considered a great hitters park, but with all the new parks that resemble Babe Ruth League Parks it is no longer considered a great park. You can say that the O's offense isn't that great, but the fact that OPPOSING offenses ranked 15/30 in runs scored only helps to prove that it is right in the middle, which makes the fact that Ponson only pitched 40% of his starts there a nonfactor.

[Rex Hudler]

Argument aside, can you please learn to use the quote function?? Trying to decipher your long posts is giving me a headache.

 

Thanks

[Capn12]

Loaiza's salary is set. No one thought he'd do what he did. No way around that. If he had only won 10 and they picked him up people would be b****ing he was making too much.

 

Mark has yet to be assigned a salary yet this year. Why assume that he's not going to get $3 or $4 or $5 million? Maybe they'll do ONE thing right this off-season..

Even Buehrle at 3-4 milion is gonna be a little over half of what Ponson is gonna cost to sign. It will take 6-7 mill per season to get him to sign, and thats more than you r#1 and #2 combined. I do agree with what you say about Loz, though.

[whitesox61382]

Argument aside, can you please learn to use the quote function??  Trying to decipher your long posts is giving me a headache.

 

Thanks

Its not a complicated process. The areas with " " around them are quotes and the areas without them are not. My post happen to be long, but if you don't want to decipher because it gives you a headache(poor baby), THEN DON'T READ MY POST. Its that simple. This is how I do things whether you/anyone else likes it or not, so get use to it

[Rex Hudler]

Argument aside, can you please learn to use the quote function??  Trying to decipher your long posts is giving me a headache.

 

Thanks

Its not a complicated process. The areas with " " around them are quotes and the areas without them are not. My post happen to be long, but if you don't want to decipher because it gives you a headache(poor baby), THEN DON'T READ MY POST. Its that simple. This is how I do things whether you/anyone else likes it or not, so get use to it

Why be an asshole about it? It was a request.

 

All you have to do is click on the Quote button before and after the text you put in quotation marks. I'm sorry if that is too difficult for you. It's not rocket science, so I assumed you could handle it. I stand corrected.

[YASNY]

I got tired of all the disrespect these two showed each other and stop reading their posts after a time. However, before I had enough of the crap, I did realize that if they would have attempted to see the other person's point of view they both may have learned something.

 

Judging a pitcher strictly based on won-loss record is indeed flawed. Setting someone up in favorable matchups can also affect said record. But that is called good managing. You are putting guys in a position were they can succeed. That should be a common practice around MLB, and not just with pitchers.

 

 

Judging a pitcher strictly based on won-loss record can say a lot about a pitcher, but you have to look at other stats as well. Black Jack McDowell may give up 5 runs but he'd beat you 6-5, or he'd beat you 2-1 if necessary. The point is, he would beat you. That, my friends, is a winner.

 

So you are both right, and you are both wrong. It depends on a wide variety of variables as to the validity of either of your arguements.

[JoshPR]

I got tired of all the disrespect these two showed each other and stop reading their posts after a time.  However, before I had enough of the crap, I did realize that if they would have attempted to see the other person's point of view they both may have learned something.

 

Judging a pitcher strictly based on won-loss record is indeed flawed.  Setting someone up in favorable matchups can also affect said record.  But that is called good managing.  You are putting guys in a position were they can succeed.  That should be a common practice around MLB, and not just with pitchers.

 

 

Judging a pitcher strictly based on won-loss record can say a lot about a pitcher, but you have to look at other stats as well.  Black Jack McDowell may give up 5 runs but he'd beat you 6-5, or he'd beat you 2-1 if necessary.  The point is, he would beat you.  That, my friends, is a winner. 

 

So you are both right, and you are both wrong.  It depends on a wide variety of variables as to the validity of either of your arguements.

It was the Same with Jack Morris.

 

And Judging a Pitcher by won -loss is Dumb. Jim Abbott went 7-15 for the Angels in 1992 and in the same year the aftermentioned Morris Went 21-6.

 

Who was better that year????

 

Here are there ERA's...

 

4.04 and 2.77 Without Looking it up who's is each ERA and Who would you want

[whitesox61382]

"Setting someone up in favorable matchups can also affect said record. But that is called good managing. You are putting guys in a position were they can succeed."

 

Yes, but I showed that Ponson WAS NOT given ideal/favorable matchups to boast his stats so he could suceed as southsiders conspiracy theory would suggest. Both Baltimore and SF threw him into the fire against the top offenses and opposed by some of the top pitchers of the game and I proved this with stats.

 

In 42% of Ponson's 31 starts he faced an offense that finished in the top 10 in runs scored, and for comparison in 41% of Colon's 34 starts he faced an offense that finished in the top 10 in runs scored. Southsider tried to tell me that Ponson starts were repeatedly skipped against the good offenses to boast his stats, but as you can see he faced the same percentage of top offenses as Colon. Should we then discredit Colon's ERA because he was skipped versus the top offenses? Of course not.

 

He also complained that he only faced the great NYY and Boston offenses 3 times despite playing in the same division and facing each 19 times over the course of the season. If southsider would have checked the Baltimore schedule he would have found out that Baltimore only played Boston and NYY a grand total of 8 times before Ponson was traded, so Ponson started in 37.5% of Baltimores starts against the 2 teams before he was traded. Is that an example of a manager holding back his top pitcher to boast his stats? Of course not, southsider simply ignored the fact that Baltimore played 14/19 games against Boston and 16/19 games against NYY after the July 31 deadline, AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE LOWER NUMBER OF STARTS AGAINST BOTH BOSTON AND NYY.

 

He complained the only 40% of Ponson's starts were at home, but neglects the fact that Camden Yards was a neutral park in which neither the pitcher nor the hitter has a distinct advantage. In fact OPPOSING offenses ranked exactly 15 out of 30 in runs scored there, so the idea that the manager skipped some of Ponson's home starts because Camden Yards is a great hitters park holds no water.

 

Finally he complained that Ponson was constantly matched up against other teams 4th and 5th starters, but he didn't bother to check out the list of opposing pitchers that Ponson went up against. Some the names include Sabathia, Loaiza, 2 vs Hernandez(from KC in the beginning of the year when he was leading the AL in ERA), Colon, Maddux, Pettite, Clemens, Willis, Schilling, Peavy, Oswalt. Thats a pretty impressive list of 4th and 5th starters that Baltimore's managerment place Ponson against to put him in an ideal situtation.

 

The fact is that southsiders conspiracy theory that Baltimore managerment purposely put Ponson in ideal/favorable matchups to boast his numbers holds no water and gave straight forward stats to support it, while southsider has given no STATS/FACTS/EVIDENCE to counter this arguement.

 

"Black Jack McDowell may give up 5 runs but he'd beat you 6-5, or he'd beat you 2-1 if necessary. The point is, he would beat you. That, my friends, is a winner."

 

Is he a winner when the Sox offense would give him 10 runs by the 5th inning and he would give up 9 and be out of the game by the 3rd inning? Because if I remember correctly he did that quite a few times, and that IS NOT a sign of a winner my friend, that is a sign of an offense that bailed out their starting pitcher. Or is the pitcher that is on the other side of the 2-1 lose a loser? With no offensive support should he be considered a sub-par pitcher because he lost? What if both of those runs came off a defensive error in which he has no control over? Should he be held accountable for the lose even though the control was taken out of his hands? Of course not and that is the major point that I am trying to prove. Wins and loses are a team stat and I wish they wouldn't include them with pitchers. You don't judge a QB in football based solely on his wins-lose record. Why? Because it is a team sport and the QB is only one person on that team. Should wins-loses be given to a RB or a RF? Of course not, but over the course of a season they might have more of an impact on wins-loses then a QB or starting pitcher, yet we only give wins-loses to the QB(as a secondary stat that is looked at after a bunch of other more important stats) and SP. That doesn't make sense. Since there is so many things that a pitcher can't control in a win or a lose(run support, defense, bullpen pitcher, to name a few) you can't use win-lose record to accurately judge the talent of a pitcher or say that he is a winner or loser for that matter. I bet that around 75% of the pitchers in the league would consistantly win if they were on the Yankees, and about 75% of the pitchers in the league would consistantly lose in they were on the Tigers. Does that make either a winner or a loser based on the talent of the team supporting them?

 

I AM NOT suggesting that Ponson is the greatest thing since sliced break, but I do think people should recognize the solid year that he had and not try and discredit it with some lame conspiracy theory. Furthermore, I think he would be a good investment at around 7M and a good replacement for Colon(while saving 4-5M/yr), especially considering that they put up almost identical numbers. Sure Colon has been more consistant over his career, but Ponson is still realitively young(27) and has begun to show the signs of consistancy based on his last 2 years. He has the stuff to support his solid numbers and give hope that more great things are to come in the future.

[YASNY]

I was making a simple point that Black Jack was the type of pitcher that would pitch well enough to win. Sure, every pitcher has a bad game occasionally, and sometimes his team will bail him out. It happens. BFD. I've seen McDowell win a 1-0 game in Minnesota when he had absolutely nothing. In a jam every inning it seemed. Yet, somehow, he would find a way to wiggle off the hook. Gutsiest pitching performance I have ever seen.

 

I was offering McDowell as an example of this type of pitcher. They do exist. It doesn't not make your point invalid. It's just something to take into consideration before you completely blow off winning percentage as a standard to measure a pitcher. It is one of many stats used to establish a pitchers worth and effectiveness.

 

Question for you. Would you consider career winning percentage or won-loss record an effective tool for judging a pitcher?

[Pastime]

After reading about the O's stacking him against 4th and 5th starters to inflate his numbers all year ....

 

That's crap. You have off days, rain outs, and other variables in play during the season. If you stick your ace against another team's ace on April 4th, honestly, how many times is he going to always fall in the "#1 ace" vs. "#1 ace" slot?

 

I don't buy that for a minute.

[Pastime]

However, I think that if Ponson is our biggest hope for next season, it's sad. Either that or the talent pool of SP's in free agency is really watered-down and mediocre.

 

This may sound crazy, but I would rather have TWO guys with the money we would pay Ponson. (Anderson and Pavano?)