Royals Review: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Network Message: 50% Off: CBS/SB Nation Fantasy Baseball

2007 Season Review

In 2007 we said hello to Gil Meche and Brian Bannister and goodbye to Buddy Bell and Angel Berroa. For the third straight season fans on the internet clamored for Justin Huber. We fought vicious battles for Grass Creek, Wyoming with our hated rivals, the Mariners. We saw Emil Brown do his best Dick Cheney. We turned the page on the Mike Sweeney Era, and we began a new chapter with Trey Hillman. As it would turn out, the 2007 Royals featured one of the team's better pitching staffs since the mid-90s, while the offense produced the fewest home runs by an AL team in over a decade. Now, at least three months two late, and spurred on by the free time that only a blizzard can provide, I give you, The 2007 Season Review.

For the second straight season, the Royals gamefully disguised multiple months of good play inside an overall less-than-impressive season record. The Royals actually came damn close to posting three winning months during the '07 season (not actually awesome, and somewhat artificial, but roll with it) since 2003.

KC Record by Month

April: 8-18
May: 11-17
June: 15-12
July: 13-12
August: 13-15
September: 9-19

Overall, the Royals posted a run differential of -72 runs, good for a Pythagorean record of 74-88, an 11 game improvement over 2006's pythag, and their highest mythical win total since 2003. (Highest real win total since '03 as well.) The Royals offense actually got worse in 2007, losing 51 total runs, but the pitching improved dramatically. The 2006 Royals were one of the worst pitching staffs of all-time, a historically bad collection that allowed 971 runs, which as I pointed out in the 2006 Season Recap was the 21st highest runs allowed total of all-time. Granted, teams score more runs nowadays, but considering the thousands of team seasons that have now been played, 21st worst is still, 21st worst. So while the offense lost 51 runs, the pitching and defense side gained a stunning 193 runs. This is a considerable achievement for the Moore regime, and one that deserves whatever small note of acclaim this blog can give it.

2007 will also be remembered for the extreme lineup and batting order variation the Royals pulled off. Tee Ball, no-keeping-score-level, teams have had more stable roles. The Royals fielded 121 total lineups - the most common appearing only six times - and trotted out an astounding 141 unique batting orders. (And no, for the 100th time, I should reiterate that I don't actually have a problem with this, I just find it cool and somewhat insane.) Perhaps all that shuffling kept the team fresh or focused or hungry or suitably non-bored, I don't know. Throughout my research for this post, the 2007 Royals seemed surprisingly "clutch" in all the ways that monster typically gets talked about, including a 21-22 record in one-run games.

The Royals went 29-43 in the AL Central, only managing a 9-9 record against the Twins on the positive side. They went 10-8 against the NL, and were completely owned by the Orioles, losing all seven games to Paul Bako's new team. (Watch Your Bako!) They went 3-3 against the Red Sox, but were crushed by the Yankees, going 1-9. Somehow, despite having a really bad offense, they scored 17 runs three times in 2007.

Alas, enough frivolities...

Run Production

The Royals scored just 706 runs in 2007, second worst in the American League (thanks Kenny Williams!). and well behind the AL average of 794. By way of comparison, AL Central aspirational peers Detroit and Cleveland both considerably lapped the Royals in '07, scoring 887 and 811 runs respectively. On the other hand, the Royals were within striking distance of Minnesota (718), and, of course, actually ahead of the White Sox, somehow. At the All-Star Break the Royals were actually 11th in the league in runs scored, but slumped to 13th after that glorious weekend in... well, wherever it was. For what its worth, the Royals scored 757 runs in 2006, up from 701 in 2005.

Still, it's somewhat remarkable that they managed even 706 runs, considering the Royals hit just 102 home runs. I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else, but in researching this piece I discovered that this is the lowest team HR total in the AL ('94 excepted) since 1992.

Think about that again. Imagine every horrible Devil Rays team from the last decade, every bad Tiger team, every bad Twins team, hell, even every bad Royals team. They all managed more than 102 home runs. Even in 1995, when teams only played 144 games, everyone managed more than 102 taters. In 1994, when there were only 115 games played, most teams had already blown by 102 team HRs, only the Royals (100) and Brewers (99) were short at that time. Incidentally, the Royals have finished last in the AL in HRs each of the last three seasons (aka, the Royals Review Era).

But Jose Guillen is ours now, so problem solved.

Honestly, its remarkable that the Royals even glanced at having a functional offense, considering they weren't really good at any aspect of the offensive game. They were 13th in the AL in OBP (.388) and only 11th in BA (.261). Then again, its hard to draw walks when your manager is preaching aggression, and you're always being challenged in the zone anyway. If we must find something positive, look to the team's proficiency in hitting triples (46 total, 2nd most in the AL) and, the bizarre HBP phenomena we saw (89, 1st in the AL).

Usually, unless your team goes on a miracle run ('07 Rockies, '05 White Sox, etc.) most fans think that their team is uniquely horrible with men on base, or with two outs, or in the clutch or whatever. Actually however, with runners in scoring position and two outs, the Royals were fairly mediocre in 2007; in that situation they rated 9th in the league in BA (.375), 11th in OBP (.339) and 9th in SLG (.375). One interesting thing to note: despite endlessly drawing plaudits for how their offensive approach is flexible, resilient, better at sustaining rallies, etc. the 2007 Angels were actually one of the worst teams with runners in sco po w/ two out (11th, 14th, 14th).

Of course, when you give substantial plate appearances to guys who are hitting below replacement level (536 PAs to Pena, 289 to Sweeney, 397 to Brown, 189 to Shealy, to name a few) you can expect an offense to struggle. But the Royals also lacked a single truly dangerous hitter as well, which also meant nothing was counteracting all that horribleness. The team leader in VORP was ... Mark Grudzielanek with a monstrous 18.1, good for 61st best in the league. Thank God the Royals have made a long-term commitment to Grudz! Looking at VORPr, the rate version of the stat, the best Royal hitter was the now-departed Reggie Sanders (.315/.412/.493). Sanders VORPr was .297, good for 28th best in the AL (among hitters with 25 PAs or more). The second best hitter on the team in VORPr, was, again, good ole Grudz.

While the importance of the blessed "little things" truly pales in comparison to the big things, we can also note that the Royals weren't really good there either in 2007. The Royals were 11th in the league in steals (78) and 12th in stolen-base percentage, at 64%. Of course, the precious Angels were 11th in that category, at 72%, and we all know that even the threat to run makes most mortal men run away screaming and that its makes pitchers so damn distracted that they can't focus on the batter. Nay, they can't even focus on breathing, which is why three pitchers died on the mound in 2007 alone. This happened twice against the Angels and once against the Dodgers, the latter tragically occurring when Lefty McElbowtissue saw Juan Pierre out of the corner of his eye.

The Royals sacrificed 41 times in 2007, tied for second most in the league with two other teams (the White Sox and Yankees... just totally bizarre, as neither team should really be bunting at all given their profiles).

Run Prevention

In 2007 the Royals featured their first non-horrible pitching staff since the mid-90s, a remarkable achievement for Dayton Moore considering the state of the organization's hurlers as he inherited them. With a team ERA of 4.48, the Royals finished 7th in the AL in ERA, their highest ranking since... 1996, when they finished 3rd. You may remember 1996: Bill Clinton defeated Bob Dole for President, evidence of primitive life forms were discovered on old Martian rocks, Dolly the Sheep was cloned, and we buried George Burns, Tupac, and JonBenet Ramsey. And through it all, Bob Boone guided the Royals to a last place finish in the Central, despite having a pitching staff featuring good seasons from Kevin Appier, Jose Rosado, Tim Belcher and Chris Haney. Unfortunately, the only two staffs in the AL better that season were, uhh, Cleveland and Chicago. Well, AL Central pride never dies, I guess.

The Royals 4.48 ERA was also better than the efforts put forth by the Yankees (4.49) and the Tigers (4.57), which means nothing, but is nevertheless worth reveling in. For whatever reasons (park effects, randomness?) the Royals were particularly dominant mound-men on the road, posting a 4.35 ERA away from the K, 4th best in the American League. At home, the Royals posted a 4.61 ERA, which was 10th best. This in spite of the fact that the K seems to have been a pretty neutral park last season.

When I began this recap I expected to find that the pitching staff really drove the team's extended good play in June-July-August (41-37 record over that span) but that really isn't precisely the case. The team ERA during the awesome June (15-12 record) was a flat 4.00 (3rd in the AL that month), but in July and August the team ranking was right were the team ended up in aggregate, 7th overall. As it turns out, the pitching did the work in June, while the bats picked up the slack in July, when the Royals threw down with the 6th highest team OPS in the league. As for August, it was all grit, moxie and veteran presence, as the pitching was just OK, and the hitting was actually typically terrible; the team posted the worst OPS in the league that month. Still, they went 13-15. As we speak, I am composing a sestina in honor of Buddisimo, which I will be mailing to his agent upon completion, thanking him for this magical month.

Beyond the competent overall performance, the most notable thing about the 2007 Royals pitching staff was the surprisingly good bullpen. While Dayton's received adoration and acclaim for the performances by Meche and Banny, overall, the starters actually, were pretty bad. The ERA of the starting staff was 4.88 overall, only 11th in the AL. No, no, my friend, it was the bullpen that made this engine run, posting a 3.85 ERA, which was the 6th highest in the AL.

Thus, if Dayton deserves any real back-slapping, its for what he was able to do with the bullpen, which improved from a league worst 5.36 ERA in 2006. And all this without having to employ National Innocence Destroying Scum like Rafael Betancourt! All hail Joakim Soria, the man who Buddy just knew was tough enough (Tougher Than the Rest, Springsteen might say) to post the 7th highest WXRL in baseball. Not to be overlooked is the work of Zach/k Greinke (14th best WXRL in the AL), Jimmy Gobble (32nd), or David Riske (42nd).

Perhaps the most exciting thing about the bullpen, and what it made it so extraordinarily fresh and non-Royal, was the fact that these guys actually struck people out. The bully posted a 7.63 K/9 number, which was 3rd best in the AL and up from an 11th place ranking in 2006. In terms of raw numbers, the Royals bullpen actually led the AL in total strikeouts, with 466! At the same time, they kept it mostly under control, finishing 6th in the league in K/BB. Nevertheless, it was a good thing the bullpen guys were striking people out, because the starters actually, umm, weren't. Not at all. Royals starters posted an overall K/9 of 5.35, last in the AL.

In this way, it was only because of the relievers that the Royals were able to avoid finishing dead last in the AL in strikeouts, instead finishing 13th, beating out only Texas. Hardcore followers of this team will note that this has been a long-standing bugaboo with the boys in blue. Remember, this is the same team that, just last season, saw Jimmy Gobble lead the team in Ks with a pathetically low total of 80. Its amazing to think about how many pitchers we've seen shuffle through KC over the last decade, and yet they've all produced the same result in this area. Here's the team rank in strikeouts recently:

Strikeouts? Never Heard of `Em. KC Team Ranks

2007- 13th
2006- 14th
2005- 12th
2004- 14th
2003- 13th
2002- 13th
2001- 13th
2000- 12th
1999- 14th
1998- 10th
1997- 12th
1996- 13th
1995- 12th

(Egg cracks and hits frying pan, immediately sizzling. Narrator intones: "Any Questions?")

OK. I'm going to stop now. I'm not even looking up the 1994 data, because, frankly, it doesn't even matter. This is completely stunning.

But enough about strikeouts, looking a little further at the team numbers, the Royals were a little homer-prone, surrendering 168 round-trippers, the 5th worst total in the AL. But thanks to being 7th stingiest in allowing walks they weren't stung too badly. As with the offense, the Royals appear to have been mildly clutch moundsmen in 2007: they had the 3rd best ERA with men on base, the 3rd best with runners in scoring position and the 5th best with runners in scoring position w/two out. The Royals also posted the best ERA in the league with the bases loaded (7.75), which is very odd considering they actually allowed the 9th highest BA with the sacks packed.

Those interested in vengeance should note: while the Royals were plunked 89 times, they only plank 41 times, 14th. This is to say, curiously enough, they had the most Hit Batsmen in the AL, their pitchers hit the fewest opposing hitters in the AL. And it doesn't seem to be because Buddy was afraid of giving away baserunners: the Royals intentionally walked 54 men, 2nd highest in the league.

Finally, a word about defense, that ohh so hard to locate quality. Like love in a way, it is certainly vital, but we never quite know how much there is or how to find it. According to the Hardball Times, +/- data, the Royals were a tick above average. According to BP's defensive efficiency stat, they were a bit below average, but still better than they'd been in 2006 or 2005.

Moving Forward- 2008 and Beyond

I said at the beginning that we should credit Dayton Moore for the huge turnaround in the team's run prevention in 2007. (Which should also be extended to Bob McClure, the advance scouts, and, the actual players.) The Royals allowed an astounding 193 fewer runs in 2007 than they did in 2006 - I'll have my intern run the numbers on the largest such turnarounds of recent vintage - turning a team weakness into a strength. Better yet, just about everyone from the pitching staff will be coming back, with suitable replacements waiting (Mahay, Tomko) for those who left (Riske, Dotel). Unfortunately, the Royals won't be improving by 193 runs again this season. As these things go, getting from incredibly horrible to adequate is not that difficult, it's the next step, adequate to good, that separates the wheat from the chaff. The Royals allowed 778 runs last season, and I think it would be hard to imagine them improving much further than say, 728 in 2008, which would be a 50-run improvement. This seems generous for a staff that, while suffering no major losses, also isn't bringing in any obvious, major studs. If the Royals can actually get to 728, they'll have won the battle, as that would likely be one of the top five staffs in the league.

That being said, I don't think the Royals can quite get to a total like that in 2008, but even if they did, it won't mean much if the offense isn't any better. Weirdly, the offense is now lining up to be in a similar position as last year's pitching staff was, i.e., just be competent and we're going to see a huge improvement. No one remembers the 2006 Royals as an offensive juggernaught, but they scored 757 runs. If the 2008 Royals could get back to that total, barring any regression with the pitching staff and extreme bad luck, we'd likely see a .500 team in Kansas City. The concern has been raised, by myself, and others on this site, that Dayton hasn't quite proven his bonafides yet in terms of building an offense. While my mind searches for an offensive move on his resume that's really worked out - the man brought us Jason LaRue, Ryan Shealy, Tony Pena Jr., Ross Gload and Joey Gathright in 2007 - he's also been extremely unlucky in this area as well. All the position players of importance are holdovers from another regime, and they all ended up having, in one sense or another, down seasons in 2007, save for perhaps John Buck. Gordon will hit better. Buck, Teahen and DeJesus are solid bets to hit better. Jose Guillen is an upgrade. Billy Butler has the potential to completely mash (although I still think he might have a Gordon-esque blip in him as well, he's really young). The odds are that Miguel Olivio, barring decapitation, will put up better numbers than LaRue did last season. This is all a rather methodical and pseudo dramatic way of saying the offense will be better in 2008, maybe even substantially better. No matter what inevitable Spring Training stories we read about Hillman installing a new attitude or more small-ball or whatever, all the new skipper really needs to do is just fill out the lineup card and get out of the way. We can retro-fit the narrative later, as I'm sure will happen anyway.

This isn't supposed to be a preview, it's supposed to be a retrospective, however. This hasn't been a fun stretch of baseball for Royals fans: there was long-suffering, then a false oasis in 2003, then another run of record-setting failure. 2007, saw the Royals make gains, while also displaying stretches of bad baseball and individually awful performances that rivaled anything from the Baird or Herk regimes. Questions remain as to if this roster core - to use a now fashionable term - is good enough to project as a division winner in a season or two. Hopefully, someday in 2010, when we're all two years older (and of course, happier, richer, better adjusted, etc.) we'll be able to look back at 2007 as when things really began to get good.

Related:

- 2005 Season Review
- 2006 Season Review

0 recs  |  Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

awesome
Great review: lots of little interesting tidbits.  

I know when reviewing a year, you're not supposed to look ahead, but it was hard not to think of the possibilities for 2008.   Our offense should be better, our pitching maybe a tinge better (depending on who gets the 4th and 5th spots), and our defense will perhaps be a bit irrelevant again.  

Specifically, Guillen should at least be able to match Emil's 2005-06 offensive output, Butler will have a full season of at bats at DH/1B, which should be a huge upgrade over whoever it would be he'd be replacing/displacing, and of course there's hope that Teahen, DeJesus and Gordon all rebound from a somewhat disappointing season.  

On the other side of the ball:  if Tomko can pitch to his career average, and if Hillman can get creative enough to coax 30 starts from a combination Nunez, Hochevar, and Soria (i.e. keep DLR and Davies out of the rotation), our starting pitching, at a minimum, should be much improved.

Taken together, I think we've got a very short window now where we can actually compete for 3rd place in the Central.  Chicago's likely to be worse than us, and Minnesota's given up the one competitive advantage they had over our team (pitching) to try to shore up their woeful offense, while losing Hunter to free agency.

Assuming their prospects follow the normal learning curve, Minnesota won't be better than us in 2008 and maybe even 2009, although they will probably start dominating once Young, Gomez, and Humber all hit their stride.

 

by marbotty on Jan 30, 2008 3:57 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

yea, he had to get his shot in at Guillen
but look at how awful Emil was last season
Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Jan 30, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Offensive improvement
I think the offense underperformed in 2007.  If the 2007 season were played out 100 more times, I think the actual 2007 performance would certainly be in the bottom quartile.  In short, I think they are better than that.  So I expect rebounds (not to greatness) from guys like DeJesus and Teahen, continued improvement from guys like Gordon and Butler and minor improvements from guys like Pena and Shealy.  I think Grudz will deteriorate and Guillen is a major improvement over what we got out of LF last year.

Without going into great detail, all of this adds up to many more runs scored.  We scored 706 runs last year and 757 the year before.  And that 2006 team was no offensive juggernaut.  I think this team could easily score 800 runs in 2008.  And a small net improvement from the pitching staff could mean 760 runs allowed.  The Pyth expected record for 800 RS and 760 RA would be 85 wins.  I'm not saying that is my prediction, but it is food for thought.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 30, 2008 5:41 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

definitely doable
Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Jan 30, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

yes, other than maybe TPJ and Buck
and Gload, just about everyone in the lineup could improve

nay, should improve

we won't be scoring 706 runs again

I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me

by LeoBloom on Jan 30, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

"barring decapitation"
Classic.
Royals, NBA, Golden Hurricane, Hawkeyes, Chiefs, and KU basketball, in that order.

by Rowyal on Jan 30, 2008 9:55 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

only 102 HRs amazes me
we're record setting baby!
Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Jan 30, 2008 12:55 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

We need to investigate
what was up with that 1998 pitching staff. Tenth in strikeouts? That's within 2.5 spots of being league avg!

That might be one of the all time great jaw-dropping stats I've ever seen! I mean, yeah, we all sorta knew this hasn't been a Royals strength for a long time - but seeing it listed like that is just mind boggling.

by loyal2s dad on Jan 30, 2008 1:52 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

i'm sure its just an expression of the overall
horribleness of our pitching

but to consistently be so bad at striking people out, hints at an organizational blindspot

I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me

by LeoBloom on Jan 30, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Tim Belcher, Pat Rapp, Jose Rosado
all managed more than 130 Ks

Scott Service was a beast out of the bully, striking out 95 guys in 83 innings

by Will McDonald on Jan 30, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Scott Service
Brings up bad memories of those unbelievably bad late-90's Royals bullpens.

Hard to believe he was our closer at one point.

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Jan 30, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

according to B-R
the 1998 Royals were actually 9th in Ks

if anyone wants to double-check my numbers, feel free

by Will McDonald on Jan 30, 2008 5:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

2008
I agree with the premise that improvement in 08 will most likely come from the offense. I'd be happy, for now, if the pitching staff duplicates its 07 performance (of course, if they put Soria in the rotation, that might represent the best chance for improvement in the short term, but perhaps at a risk for the long term).

My prediction:

RS: 750-775
RA: 765-790

Final Record: 79-83

by loyal2s dad on Jan 30, 2008 2:01 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Wow
The offseason improvements only add up to 5 more wins?  I think this prediction is on the pessimistic side.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 30, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i see next season...
as being the one where we get the media narrative of "young royals still learning how to win" after the royals lose back to back one-run games in may
I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me

by LeoBloom on Jan 30, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Learning To Score
2 more runs a game is hard.
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Jan 30, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm just happy to be past the
Buddy Bell era. I know we're not talking about it anymore and I don't want to start a fight. It's just refreshing to be past it. Now, it's truly Dayton's team. Of course, there are still some holdovers from the Baird days, but for the most part, this is Dayton's squad.

by royaldaddy on Jan 30, 2008 4:55 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Strange year
i saw flashes of future greatness and yet had to watch larue start for half the season. it was like being pulled in two different directions.
"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Jan 30, 2008 7:34 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

thats a good way of putting it
we also gave Alex Gordon a standing o on opening day, and were giddy about Shealy

and then they were two of the worst hitters on the planet for two months

by Will McDonald on Jan 30, 2008 7:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

And saw JDLR dominate AL lineups
Until early June, then completely tank
"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Jan 30, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think you mean mid-to-late April
May 2007: 34 IP, 16 BB, 13 K, 6.09 ERA

His last start in April (Apr. 27) was not great either -- 6.1 IP, 8 H, 5 ER, 1 BB, 3 K, 2 HR.

by Gopherballs on Jan 30, 2008 8:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I stand corrected
Thanks G
"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Feb 4, 2008 11:13 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Nice review,
I am all optimism for 2008.  By 2009 the Royals will be made of win.

by James Quinn on Jan 31, 2008 9:38 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

plunking hitters...
"Those interested in vengeance should note: while the Royals were plunked 89 times, they only plank 41 times, 14th. This is to say, curiously enough, they had the most Hit Batsmen in the AL, their pitchers hit the fewest opposing hitters in the AL. And it doesn't seem to be because Buddy was afraid of giving away baserunners: the Royals intentionally walked 54 men, 2nd highest in the league."

I have an interesting story to comment to this point.  I had the opportunity to sit in the GM's box one game (no I'm not a VIP -- just happened to be being given the 'Royal' treatment because my son had been recently signed).  Anyway, Twins were playing and I was listening to the GM assistant and the roving pitching instructor Bill Fischer talking about the two pitcher's performances.  Both starting pitchers were getting knocked around pretty good, but pitching well enough to stay in...

I heard the comment from the Assistant GM to Fischer to take a look at the strikes to balls ratio for each pitcher... it was remarkable by both (3:1 or more strikes to balls).  They were commenting that these guys were doing really well with their command. I think it was Dean Taylor telling me that "Fisch knew something about throwing strikes because he went 84 consecutive innings without a walk once in his career."

Inside my brain wanted to scream out that "they might be throwing a lot of strikes, but the hitters are so well dug in they aren't missing much either!"  These guys at the plate were way too comfortable and should have been being given something to think about... I didn't hear it from the top guys though.  

Bill Fischer might have been the greatest strike thrower ever, but that does not equal greatest pitcher ever (obviously). Were it me, seeing more than a 3:1 strike to ball ratio and seeing hitters teeing off on pitches, I'd have been out there talking about knocking a few people down and laying claim to the inside half of the plate..., but it didn't happen.  Didn't even get talked about up in the GM's box. Fischer was quite happy with the strike to ball ratio of his guy.  Again, my brain was screaming inside, but I was too chicken to contradict the baseball gurus there.

Your stat on players plunked is further efidence of a failure in approach by the organization. Give me a Zach Grienke that hitters worry about getting hit by and you might see a lot more strikeouts and wins.  Strikes don't equal effectiveness it's important, but not the only thing. You have to throw them when you need them, but off the plate up and in is just as important. The Royals have a legendary strike thrower guiding pitcher development, it might be that they are overvaluing it with their young guys a bit.

A little fear in the hitter goes a long way toward a pitcher's success.  Strikes are not all that counts in the pitchers favor.  Randy Johnson has made a good living knowing this.  And I'll take a few more HBP and a hardnosed pitching staff any day.

by RoyalPops on Jan 31, 2008 9:34 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Do HBP's really help?
When you hit a batter, you give up a baserunner.  Is the intangible "fear" and "intimidation" which may or may not be created worth more than that (or those) free baserunner(s)?

I think the intangible "benefits" of plunking batters are vastly overrated...at least by those who think it is truly beneficial.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 31, 2008 10:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I do not know how you would measure this,
but I think in almost all cases when a batter knows the pitcher he is facing is willing to hurt him he will do less well against him.  A lot of great pitchers knew by throwing high and tight they would own the outside corner of the strike zone and made a career out of this philosophy.  Bob Gibson is the most famous example.

It takes a special type of bastard to crowd the plate when he knows the guy on the mound has no problem at all putting one in his ear.

Have you ever read Leonard Koppett's book?  He has a section where he argues that one key factor in baseball that is overlooked by most fans is the reality of fear in the batters box.

One other factor here.  As I have talked with college players I now realize one of the unexpected side-effects of the use of metal in the NCAA is that college pitchers just do not learn to throw inside.  A batter with metal is much more capable of fighting off an inside pitch than one using wood.  This, along with the greatly reduced acceptance of intentional hit batters, has significantly altered the pro game over the last few decades.  One more factor as to why we are in an offensive era.  Personally, I'd be fine with more leeway for inside pitching and a return of the pitchers mound back to its pre-1970 height.  I much more enjoy a 4-3 game to an 8-6 affair.

by James Quinn on Feb 1, 2008 2:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I like the pure brush-back myself
all the intimidation, non of the free passes

maybe thats what we were doing last year... I dont know

by Will McDonald on Feb 1, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Gibson was one mean bastard
I remember reading about how he would pitch.  A brush back was no empty gesture.  If he pitched you up and in and you tried digging back in close to the plate, he took it as a personal challenge.  The next pitch would put you on your ass, or flat on your back in the clubhouse if you were particularly stubborn.  And he remembered who he had issued "warnings" to in earlier games.  He didn't like messing around re-educating the rookies after he had already let them know what was theirs and what was his.  If you had a warning last month and tried to renegotiate with Gibson the next time you faced him, he was not going to play around.

If I remember correctly he rarely issued intentional walks.  If he was going to put you on base he was going to do it his way.

I would love to have Gibson on this team.

by James Quinn on Feb 1, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sage Advice
From Hank Aaron:

"Gibson was known for pitching inside to batters. Dusty Baker received the following advice from Hank Aaron about facing Gibson:

"'Don't dig in against Bob Gibson, he'll knock you down. Don't stare at him. He doesn't like it. If you happen to hit a home run, don't run too slow, don't run too fast. If you happen to want to celebrate, get in the tunnel first. And if he hits you, don't charge the mound, because he's a Gold Glove boxer.' I'm like, 'Damn, what about my 17-game hitting streak?' That was the night it ended." [1]

McCarver reminisces:
"I remember one time going out to the mound to talk with Bob Gibson. He told me to get back behind the batter; that the only thing I knew about pitching was that it was hard to hit."
James Timothy "Tim" McCarver
St. Louis Cardinals
Catcher

Up and in and down and away are as old as the game. It works from as soon as you graduate from tee ball to retirement.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 3, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

One thing I find a bit odd.
On the entire Royals pitching staff the only one I saw last year willing to brush back hitters was Zack Grenkie.  And I normally think of Grenkie as neither nasty or confident, to thing I would expect from a pitcher who goes at hitters like this.

Dave Stewart, he was a more recent example of a guy of this mold.

by James Quinn on Feb 3, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Funny Gibson story, from wiki...
In 1992 Gibson pitched in the Old Timers Game and Reggie Jackson hit a home run against him.  The following year Gibson and Jackson faced each other again.  Gibson started Jackson off with a brush back.  Gibson was 57 years old at the time.

by James Quinn on Feb 6, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

HBP's
If your gonna pitch inside it's inevitable that HBP's will go up.  It's a measure of how much of the plate you are fighting for.  

You can disagree, but the best pitchers are not afraid to go inside even if it means someone gets hit now and then.  Gibson, Ryan, R. Johnson all had fear factor on their side. The part of the game that has changed is that now all the hitters are armor plated.  It's a little tougher to intimidate an Ortiz when his elbow hangs over the strike zone and it's got pads all over it.

My point is the Royals are anemic at pitching inside.  The stats show it. Put a little fear in the back of a hitters mind and claim more of the plate and performance improves.

by RoyalPops on Feb 1, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Pitching inside
If you're saying that the Royals (and any team) needs to effectively pitch inside, then I agree with you.  Sometimes that means inside and off the plate.  But I don't think that necessarily means intentionally plunking hitters.

Gibson, Ryan, R. Johnson all had fear factor on their side.

They were great pitchers with great stuff and command.  So was it their intimidation/fear that made them so good?  I think it was their stuff and command, their actual talent.  Also, it is a lot easier to effectively pitch inside when you have tremendous stuff.  If you go inside with an average fastball, it can easily end up somewhere beyond the outfield wall.

My point is the Royals are anemic at pitching inside.  The stats show it.

My overall problem with this analysis is that the Royals pitched well last year and improved greatly over the prior three years.  The stats show that their approach worked pretty well overall.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 5:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Picthing inside
Yes, my point is about pitching inside.  Intentionally plunking hitters is not the idea. Players HBP is a measure of how much you are laying claim to the inner half and off the inner half.

And yes Ryan, Gibson et. al. had great stuff, but there is no denying that they were intimidating as well and that was part of their greatness, not the whole package, just a piece, but a piece they obviously thought was important.  It is part of a mindset that is the mental war between pitcher and hitter.

Obviously because it was highlighted in the above article, HBP raised other's interests too.  The Royals may be improving on the mound for all kinds of reasons. My point is pitching inside is an area they are statistically different than the league (and not because they are afraid of putting hitters on).

If you are pitching inside hitters get hit more.  That's the conclusion I draw from their HBP stat.  Maybe they're inside all game long and they are just so good nobody gets hit... but I doubt it.  If your going to be effective inside, it's got to move hitters out of their stance and if you do that some are gonna get hit.

This is an observation that maybe pitching inside more is one piece they can improve on because it's not a big part of what they are doing now.  They may be improving for a lot of reasons, but they aren't yet there either.  Sometimes you have to take a hard look at yourself to see what more you can do to improve.  

The pitching philosophy now seems to be to stay away more than average in the league.  That may very well be the right approach and I'm a fool along with the other 13 teams in the league that pitch inside more.  When they win the series (or even finish above .500 with this approach), I'll re-evaluate.  :-)

I'd like to see this stat broken down by pitcher and team just see how much correlation it has to performance.  I know it from experience, but I didn't pitch professionally.  I'd like to find out more... maybe somebody has the tool to help us break it down...

Anybody?

by RoyalPops on Feb 1, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

AL 2007
Here are the AL teams listed by ERA from best to worst, with their rank in HBP in parentheses (most HBP = #1)
  1. BOS (5)
  2. TOR (10)
  3. CLE (9)
  4. MIN (11)
  5. LAA (12)
  6. OAK (13)
  7. KC (14)
  8. NYY (7)
  9. DET (3)
  10. SEA (6)
  11. TEX (2)
  12. CHW (8)
  13. BAL (1)
  14. TB (4)
I see no correlation whatsoever.  In fact, I see more of a correlation between low HBP and good ERA.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 6:49 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Correlations are funny things
So your conclusion is that pitching inside has no value to team ERA, you might be right.  Or it may be lost in the control problems of young staffs. How about individual pitcher by ERA rank?

I think what you have found is that staffs with less control do worse in the league ERA ranking.  It is easy to obscure the value of pitching inside with not being able to hit your spots.

I'm still interested in finding the correlation in a more direct statistic.  I believe HBP is still a measure of willingness to pitch inside, but unfortunately a lot of pitchers as you have noted don't have the talent or the stuff to put the ball where they want consistently.  It may be worth starting with those that were notoriously successful at intimidation and looking at the numbers.  If that doesn't show above average HBP, I'll bow to your superior understanding of the game.

I don't have the same access or know how that you do to pull the info together, but I do have the ability to mash the numbers when I find them.  I'll see what I can dig up to support the assertion.

by RoyalPops on Feb 1, 2008 7:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The meaning of HBP
I don't think the numbers I quoted above prove anything other than that this data doesn't show a correlation between high HBP and low ERA.  The problem is that when you see a high HBP, you don't know if it is because they are pitching aggressively inside or because they just have poor control.  But if that is true, then it must also be true that when you see a low HBP, you don't know if it is because they aren't pitching agressively inside or because they just have good control.

The problem with looking at a handful or even a dozen individual pitchers is that if they have a lot of HBP's and a good ERA (and good peripherals), we don't know if the former caused the latter.  Also, if you find a dozen pitchers with high HBP rates and good ERA's and then I find a dozen pitchers with low HBP rates and good ERA, where has this gotten us?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I've Heard It
Posited that aluminum bats are the reason young pitchers do not learn to pitch inside, since they don't break.

Another point; a pitcher with great command can afford to waste a pitch to put one under the batter's chin, and also has the control to do it without hitting him.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 3, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think "intimidation" is overrated
When major league batters get brushed back, they dig right back in.  I don't think it changes where they set up or their approach.

That being said, if brush back pitches actually work, I'm all in favor of them.  Just don't give away free passes.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 3:28 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Make sure that those that can be intimidated are..
Great hitters are tough to intimidate, but if you get the number 6-9 guys back on their heels even a littlebit, you make sure they don't beat you as often. It's a game of averages you want to make sure that when they face you that is the day that they are below average.

I've heard stories of many players that got the flu everytime they had to face an intimidating pitcher.  It isn't every hitter, but it's not zero hitters either.  Hitters can be intimidated even at the big league level.  If you've only got mid-eighties stuff then you might have to make a living nibbling the outer half, but if you can pitch inside in the mid to upper 90's, you bet it's scary.  I've seen darn few guys not duck to get out the way... if they were willing to get hit, it wouldn't happen.

by RoyalPops on Feb 1, 2008 5:32 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Intimidation
It's hard to say what intimidates hitters.  I'm sure some are intimidated by guys who plunk a lot of batters.  But I think the real intimidation comes from facing genuinely good pitchers.  I think some players get the "flu" on days when Santana or Peavy are pitching, but it isn't because they hit a lot of batters.

Again, pitching inside is a good idea (when it is a good idea), but I don't think hitting batters usually helps your team overall.

Who is your son?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 5:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks for the discussion...
I am really enjoying the discussion, but my son's name will have to be left out... it's not hard to figure out.

I won't disagree with the fact that hitters that worry about their numbers get sick when they face tough pitching, I think that's different than fear at the plate. Worrying about getting beat at the plate is fear of failure in general... my view is that is a character issue of a different sort.

I still believe that the numbers tell me the Royals can improve at attacking hitters inside.  Not all pitchers can or should do it and not all hitters should be attacked there.  I think we agree on that.  But if you are managing or just an fan a little obsessed you can find the seeds of positive changes in the statistics.  That doesn't mean fixing the problem is easy or even the whole solution, but you can learn about where to try different approaches.

by RoyalPops on Feb 1, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

One more thing about getting hurt
I think in almost all cases when a batter knows the pitcher he is facing is willing to hurt him he will do less well against him

I can see genuine fear if a batter thinks a pitcher is willing to (and sometimes will) throw at his head, but how much would a MLB hitter worry about getting hit in the arm, side, hip, leg or any other part of the body?  Sure it stings and it is no fun, but do you think hitters are worried about that?  It really is no big deal.  Now if we're talking about genuine headhunters who actually throw at batter's heads, then maybe that is effective.  But I wouldn't suggest that Royals pitchers do that.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 3:44 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Hitters Sure Do
Go through some pretty wild contortions to dodge a pitch; there must be some fear at a basic level, even if it's subconscious.
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 3, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Reflex
If a ball is coming at someone at 90 mph (or even 70 mph), he's going to try to get out of the way.  Just because players dodge those balls, doesn't mean they are afraid of them.  They'd rather not get hit than get hit (usually), but they clearly aren't afraid to dig in, oftentimes right on top of the plate.  I really don't think there is much reason to fear (nor even much irrational fear) of getting hit in the arm/side/hip/back, etc. by MLB hitters.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 3, 2008 11:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

HBP
While I do not think there is a direct correlation between HBP and successful pitching stats, I do disagree that there is no fear of getting hit. Getting hit in the back or the ass or the thigh is not that bad, that's why they teach you to turn away from the pitch. But what you don't want to happen is getting hit in the hand, wrist or elbow. You see it every year, guys get hit in those spots and they are out several games or in a lot of cases on the DL.

Now, obviously, as big leaguers they are going to get back up and dig in the next time they come to the plate. But that doesn't mean they have no fear, it means they are doing what they are paid a lot of money to do.

Call it whatever you want to call it if it's not fear, but it goes through your head and has an effect on you one way or another. I can say that from experience, many times.

by MileHighKCfan on Feb 4, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Fear Is A
Subconscious phenomenon; you can get back up and dig in for the next pitch, but it will get "in your head". Different people are affected differently, but I believe it is a significant factor for a large part of the population, including MLB'ers.
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 5, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

We'll never know, I guess
I just don't see MLB players feeling any kind of meaningful fear over getting hit anywhere but the head/face.

I think I see this whole "you have to throw at guys or pitch inside to intimidate and create fear and discomfort in the batter" philosophy as one of the pieces of traditional baseball orthodoxy which really  doesn't have much of any substance behind hit.  I think it is one of those things that just gets repeated over and over and it becomes the conventional wisdom.  I think it is outmoded and antiquated, like sac bunting in the first inning.

But, unlike sac bunting in the first inning, there is no way for us to measure the risks, benefits and costs of this strategy, so we'll never know if this bit of old baseball orthodoxy is good strategy or not.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 5, 2008 3:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I wonder if there was a large split between
the starters and the bullpen on this, since I think the relievers were the stronger part of the staff...

-Royals starters were 13th in HBPs with 25
-Royals relievers were also 13th, with 16 HBPs

so... yea

Cleveland's bullpen, btw, didnt hit anyone, plunking only 8 guys.

by Will McDonald on Feb 1, 2008 7:00 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.
Start posting about the Royals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

Cbs_fantasy_baseball_promo

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Royals 2009 review and 2010 manifesto
Mst_small
Anagrams for each name on the 40-Man Roster
Nyroyal3a_small
Worst Decisions Possible: 2010
Royalsretro_small
Reasons to be excited for Royals baseball in 2010

Recent FanPosts

New-kaufmann-stadium_small
Game 8 Lineup vs. M's (3/12) - Cruz Returns
2147001259_7c385ab477_small
Perfect non perfect game
N-star_20color_small
Game 7 Lineup (3/11) & Moustakas Assigned to Minor League Camp
Small
I need your help!
Drteeth_small
The Quick and Dirty on the 40....Off the Dome
Small
anyone seen Juan Cruz?
Small
Royals Go Cheap Again
Small
Free Yahoo Keeper League
150px-rickreilly_small
FireRickReilly Royals Preview
Alexgordon_small
Alex Gordon depresses me

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Royalsreview_small Will McDonald