Another Dayton Moore Interview
by Freneau on Nov 18, 2008 1:44 PM EST
Email
PrintI saw this link on the old Royals yahoogroup today....
So lets pull some quotes:
On the criticism of Jacobs that he doesn't address the Royals' need to upgrade their on-base capability after finishing 12th in the league with a team OBP of .320
I think great on-base guys are kind of like acquiring great pitchers -- there's just a few out there, and everyone can recognize guys that get on base, and certainly you want to have them at the top of your lineup and the bottom of your lineup. In the middle of your lineup, you've got to have guys that are going to produce runs. That's the philosophy that I have and Mike Jacobs fits that bill. Our on-base issues are more with the current players we have and the roles that they are in. Alex Gordon made great strides last year (.314 in 2007, .351 in 2008). Mark Teahen took a step back (.353 in 2007, .313 in 2008), but in the past he's been very good (.332 career). David DeJesus has always been a very good on-base guy (.366 in 2008, .360 career). Alberto Callaspo, potentially, is a high on-base guy (.361 in 74 games in 2008). So we've got to keep stressing that depending on where we're at in the lineup. In the middle of the lineup, we've got to have guys who can produce runs. The other aspect of this is that when Gil Meche and Zack Greinke matched up against fourth and fifth starters, we've lost those games 3-2 and 4-3 and 2-1. By having guys like Jacobs in (Jose) Guillen in the middle of our order, and the continued improvement of Gordon and guys like that, we've got a chance to win those games 7-3 and 4-1 and so forth. That's kind of the way we look at it.
In a way, he does have a point. However, there's a difference between not being able to afford the top OBP machines, or being able to find them, and actively bringing in the absolute lowest OBP guys in the game with regularity. And what Gordon and Teahen have to do with Jacobs being hacktastic I don't know. Oh, and nice whistling past the graveyard of the Guillen Out Machine as well.
Another:
On reports about the Royals being down on Billy Butler
Anything you've read about Billy Butler that is negative, is a lie. We've never said anything, and we're very pleased with Billy. He doesn't even have two full years in the major leagues, he's 22 years old. He's been very, very successful against lefthanded pitching (.340, 12 HR in 241 AB). With righthanded pitching, he's struggled a bit from time to time (.256, 7 HR in 531 AB), but he's going to begin the season at 22 years old next year. We're very pleased at what Billy's doing, and is going to continue to do. To speculate on things, we've never had any internal conversations focusing on our displeasure or lack of satisfaction with Billy Butler.
I'm slightly afraid of Dayton Moore's moral universe. This is at least the second time I can recall that he's referred to just a standard, run-of-the-mill baseball rumor as a "lie", which seems too strong a word and even a touch paranoid. The internets is spreading lies! Lies! Lies! Absolute lies!
One more:
On the starting rotation
If you go back to '06, the Royals were coming off the worst pitching staff in the history of the organization... We still don't have the depth of starting pitching that we need. We still lack that, we're still looking to add to the current group that we have, but we do like the youth that we have with Gil Meche and Greinke, (Luke) Hochevar, (Kyle) Davies and Banny. Gil just turned 30 in September, and he's improved each year, continues to get a little bit better, and I think he really took a step forward to be able to keep us in games and win games when he didn't have his best stuff. In the past, when he didn't have his best stuff, he had a little trouble getting through.
Its a good, interesting read... there's also some positive thoughts on Olivo & Banny.
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Fanshotted here
http://www.royalsreview.com/2008/11/14/661465/anything-you-ve-read-about
THAT IS A LIE!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
How dare Dayton Moore clearly deny a rumor
Is using the word “lie” making a moral judgement? Or is it a good way to cut through the GM-speak to make his support of a player very clear? Should he have been more vague? Would that have been less moralistic?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
+1
It’s nice to see unequivocal support of a younger player. You can’t let go of young guys too soon, before you’ve seen what they can really do with a few years experience under their belts. – TL
[In 2008] Kila Ka’aihue had the best on-base percentage of any hitter in the minor leagues. - Joe Posnanski, 11/9/2008 ... Ergo, let's give him a shot at first base in KC in 2009.
Maybe
Although the statement was unequivocal, you’d have a hard time convincing me that the organizations actions toward Butler are unequivocally statements of faith in him, for better or worse.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Nov 18, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
Because they sent him down at some point in 2008?
It appears that they thought he had some things to work on. That doesn’t mean that they don’t like his future, even his near future.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
fair enough
but he also referred to the franecour rumors as “an absolute lie” which seems to suggest he’s got a verbal tick in this regard
I thought he referred to the Teahen-to-Cleveland rumors as a "lie"
Did he also say that about Francoeur? Regardless, if none of these moves happen, then apparently we know that when he says something is a “lie” then we know it’s not just GM-speak, that this kind of denial is the real deal.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
I guess it depends on what Dayton means by support
Does the think he’s going to be good? Yeah, he never says otherwise? But unless the Mellinger Betancourt story was another “absolute lie,” in addition resigning and playing Gload ahead of him, and having organizational mouthpiece George Brett talk about Butler’s maturity problems on the radio I don’t think the organization has been publicly all sunshine and lollipops re: Butler, either.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Nov 18, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Let's deal with these points in turn
Butler was still a prospect back when he was allegedly offered for Betancourt. If this report is true, was that him not liking Butler? Or was that him overvaluing Betancourt?
Now Gload. Butler can play 1B or DH. I don’t see signing Gload and playing him at one of those positions as not supporting or not liking Butler. At most it is undervaluing his defense.
having organizational mouthpiece George Brett talk about Butler’s maturity problems on the radio
Come now, do you think for a second that Moore got on the phone with Brett and asked him to go on the radio and bad mouth Butler? That seems far fetched in the extreme.
So yeah, I think the organization has been pretty darn sunshine and lollipops about Butler. They called him up for a long stretch of regular playing time at age 20. He was a regular for most of his age 21 season. ALL of the organization’s public comments about him have been positive. They haven’t traded him or brought in anyone to replace him. I’m still waiting for any real sign that the organization is down on him. It might come, but I haven’t seen it.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
Didn't Butler Make
Some noise about losing weight and trying to play LF next year? That was the original plan for him after it became clear 3B was not an option, was it not?
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 18, 2008 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
He did play LF in the minors
(and just a little in the majors just after his call up) But by all accounts he was awful out there. He really has no speed or quickness. It’s hard to imagine him being anything but an awful defensive OFer. I don’t know if the Royals organization is considering that.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
It Seemed He
Was implying he was planning to get in better shape, thus being better able to perform the duties of a LF. I have no idea if this is within the realm of possibility.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 18, 2008 9:03 PM EST up reply actions
I appreciate the effort
It would be good for him to be slimmed down and in better shape. But I doubt he’ll ever play another inning in the OF in his major league career.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 9:23 PM EST up reply actions
just hatin on the big guy with no speed
I understand what its like to not have speed. Its a daily struggle.
Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.
The bionic legs should help. :)
Go Royals!
How much is Olivo going to make next season?
It will be interesting to see what Josh Bard makes next year, given that both James and Marcels (which are probably more accurate than James, sadly) project him better than Buck who projects better than Olivo.
Whatever. Marcel is also a well-know prevaricator.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
If what they agreed to was his 2009 mutual option
Then he’ll be making $2.7M. He’s overpaid.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
%$#@!
Just canceled a post. Was just saying that maybe they think it’s a good deal because they see Olivo as getting more than half the starts… which it might be, unless RHPs figure out that Olivo can barely pick up 70 MPH heater from them, in which case he’ll be sub-replacement again.
If he’s being kept around to “push” Buck, fine. Much like my faith in Teahen, it’s probably a bit misplaced, but when the alternative is having Miguel Olivo as your starting catcher… I just think that the beginning of 2007 said something important. There are more than a few similiarities between Buck and Kelly Shoppach — guys with contact issues but submerged power. Late bloomers offensively who haven’t quite got the playing time. Decent patience.
Who knows? But the Royals aren’t giving themselves a chance to find out by constantly jerking the guys playing time around and not giving him a chance to succeed against LHP. LIke Soria to the rotation and Butler to 1B, 2009 is the time to try things out. With Buck, find out what you’ve got rather than go year-to-year with arbitration figures because you don’t know what kind of starter the guy will be because you think if you start Miguel Olivo the team might win 81 games instead of 80.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Nov 18, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
Dayton Moore doesn't understand the value of OBP
He thinks it is important at the top of the order (which it is) and at the bottom of the order (I guess because you know those guys aren’t going to have power, so they should at least be able to get on base some), but in the middle of the order you want power. Now I agree that you want power in the middle of the order, but I think Moore believes that power is important in the middle of the order and OBP is largely irrelevant for those players, unless you can get a superstar who has both power and OBP. The problem is that OBP is valuable for every hitter, no matter where they are supposed to hit in the lineup.
If you ask Moore which 1B he’d rather have (all other things being equal)
Player A .275/.300/.500
or
Player B .275/.375/.425
I’m sure Moore would pick Player A. And that’s just sad. What Player B does at the plate would lead to more runs scored for his team than Player A. It’s not particularly close. Now I understand that a team should have some balance, with some guys being more OBP heavy and some being more SLG heavy. But when a team is desperately in need of more runs and has a horribly low OBP, you don’t run out and add more “Player A” types. You work on improving the OBP before complementing them with some more power heavy guys.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 2:37 PM EST reply actions 6 recs
Come on
He understands just as well as you and I what OBP does for an offense. The problem is other GMs understand too, and the guys who can give you OBP are expensive and/or difficult to acquire. We all understand that Jacobs is not a great player, and that he probably wouldn’t start for most MLB teams, but the Royals have a huge hole at 1B/DH to the point that they were playing Gload and Olivo at those positions regularly. Say what you will about replacement level players being readily available, the fact is that the Royals were not comfortable with the available options of Gload, Butler, Shealy, and Ka’aihue to start the year, and they didn’t see any AAAA players out there that they liked better than Shealy. The Royals acquired a slightly above replacement level player in Jacobs. They paid fair value in Leo Nunez, and they dealt from a position of strength to fill a position of need. Jacobs stands to help this team a great deal against RHP’s in 2009, and gives the team some needed depth to make decisions like starting KK in Omaha, trading Gload or Shealy, or optioning Butler during a slump. Perhaps, most importantly, it pushes Butler for playing time. We’ll see how he responds, but I’m hopeful that this move will precipitate a real breakout season from Butler.
by kcdc1 on Nov 18, 2008 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He understands just as well as you and I what OBP does for an offense.
No, I don’t think he does. Sure, it is hard to find and afford a power hitter with a good OBP. But what he chose to trade for and spend $3.5M on was a guy with a pretty good SLG and a horrible OBP. I don’t think Moore understands the relative importance of OBP and SLG. Sure it is hard to afford a .300/.400/.500 player, but that doesn’t mean you choose a .275/.300/.500 guy, instead of looking for a .275/.375/.425 guy. Those guys aren’t expensive and are better for the offense than the all-power, no-OBP guys.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
and, oddly enough, usually have better defense
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Nov 18, 2008 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
I understand what you're saying
But I disagree—I don’t think if DM had the choice between acquiring a .275/.300/.500 or a .275/.375/.425 player, he would choose the former. These people work 15 hour days evaluating players year round, and their computers work every bit as well as ours do. The fact that a point of OBP is more valuable than a point of SLG is very well known. Dayton Moore is a bright guy—even his off the cuff responses tend to be clearly presented, well thought through, and guarded. (Although I do think he has become somewhat uncharacteristically defensive about this particular move.) There are legitimate critiques to be made, but I think it’s wildly unlikely that’s he’s never considered the relative value of OBP against SLG.
Regarding the Jacobs trade, I think DM truly believes that Jacobs’s OBP will improve with the Royals based on video, scouting reports, and the opinions of his coaches. Statistics and age would indicate otherwise. I think it’s a much more reasonable to criticize DM for weighing scouting too heavily against statistics on this move than it is to say he simply doesn’t understand what the statistics mean.
by kcdc1 on Nov 18, 2008 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Also
Who could DM have acquired that would hit .275/.375/.425 and would cost less than Nunez + $3 million per year?
Josh Willingham was just traded for a song
Nick Swisher was dealt for not much more than that
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Nov 18, 2008 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What's with all this Klia talk?
Jacobs is totally gunna OBP .320 in 2009.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Nov 18, 2008 11:00 PM EST up reply actions
But Kila’s had a good minor league season.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 19, 2008 1:20 AM EST up reply actions
but jacobs probably plays the game the right way
and rookies are sooo god damned annoying
Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.
Jacobs has the benefit of actually doing something well in the majors
…while Kila has something of a spotty professional track record (spotty in that there is a spot of good mixed in there with a lot of mediocre). I’m not getting Jacobs was the right move, but it’s not like Kila is a lock to come in and hit as well as Jacobs is likely to. We have no idea. We don’t even know if he’ll even hit well in the minors next year. He could revert back to the rest of his professional career and be really unimpressive.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 19, 2008 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
First off
we don’t know which he would pick but I like the way you’ve set up your argument. I’ve gotta agree with kcdc, though. We’re talking about his profession that he spends 9/10 of the year working on. To suggest that a bunch of fans on an internet site somehow know more than the Head of a Baseball organization is far-fetched.
If you or anyone else really do understand OBP and all the other things that make teams good better than he, then why is no one working in a front office somewhere? I know I’d love that job.
I feel like you are finally getting fed up with Moore? You usually don’t make inferences like this about the unknown. I guess Jacobs finally took the cake for you?
by I need more Esteban on Nov 19, 2008 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
To suggest that a bunch of fans on an internet site somehow know more than the Head of a Baseball organization is far-fetched.
There has been a lot of research in the last 15 years about the true value of various outcomes, stats and skills. Not everyone in baseball is on board with all of this research. Many of them pay little or no attention to it. There is baseball knowledge that many GM’s don’t have, particularly that which has come from more recent research. Much of traditional baseball orthodoxy is just plain wrong. It takes a while for everyone in baseball to understand and recognize that this stuff which people have believed for a long time is wrong.
I feel like you are finally getting fed up with Moore? You usually don’t make inferences like this about the unknown. I guess Jacobs finally took the cake for you?
As more pieces of data about Moore’s offensive philosophies, how to build and offense and what he’s actually done to build an offense, my opinion of him has developed and evolved. Before the 2007 season, I thought there was too little information to determine if he was good or bad at putting together a lineup and a defense, but I thought the available data wasn’t good. I was looking to this offseason to really tell me how good or bad he is in that regard. The Jacobs trade, and then these comments about OBP show me that he thinks OBP is important, but he doesn’t know how important it is. He has a very incomplete understanding of the value of OBP. Overall, I think he’s shown that he isn’t very good at evaluating or acquiring position players, particularly in regard to recognizing the true value of OBP and defense.
I don’t think Moore sucks. I think there’s enough data to say that he isn’t good with position players. Hopefully he’ll improve and create more data points on the other side of the ledger.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 19, 2008 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
No offense, NYRoyal
But I can’t believe I’m reading this coming from you. Don’t get me wrong – I believe you have given Moore criticism much of where it’s due, but you haven’t ever really conceded this point, from what I’ve read on the site.
You are absolutely 100% correct, sir. Rec’d again.
http://www.royalsreview.com/2007/10/29/155410/27
(Dayton Moore Has No Clue How To Build An Offense)
by Royals Nation on Nov 18, 2008 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
What I haven't said
…is that Moore has done good job of putting together a defense or that he will in the future. What I have said consistently is that he hasn’t done much work in that area and therefore we don’t have enough data to determine how good or bad he is at putting an offense together. I’ve also said throughout this season that so far the data does not look good. We’ve gotten some more important data with the Jacobs acquisition, and I think the above comments about OBP tell us a lot about what Moore’s understanding of OBP is. He’s said from the beginning that OBP is important. But I think some of his acquisitions he’s made along with the above comments shows that he doesn’t fully understand the importance of OBP.
In short, it’s not true that if someone isn’t bashing Moore, they are defending him.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions
I never said you defended him
I just said that you had never before called out his offensive philosophies to this extent. At least from what I have read. I’m not necessarily blaming you for “wrongs.” It’s interesting to see you take this position, however.
by Royals Nation on Nov 18, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
If things work right, my opinions follow the available data
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 8:32 PM EST up reply actions
Are they really opinions then?
Perhaps you’re just a stat sheep!
Everyone, get him! He’s not individual enough!
He's got something like a slightly updated 1930s view of offense
I guess there is probably something to having “balance” or whatever, but the truth is, the Royals just need better offensive players, period, no matter if they get it from OBP or SLG. Yeah, if the Royals had guys who “only” hit like DDJ in the place of Jacobs and Guillen, the Royals would have “less power.” So what? I guarantee the offense would be better, no matter where in the order they hit.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
This is supposed to be under NYRoyals comment
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Nov 18, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
but
he hit over 30 bombs!!!
In the Royals game of life, Neifi Perez is the rake.
the thing is
With the constant Jacobs bashing (there must be 1000 negative posts about him, and he hasn’t played one game with us) I am definitely becoming a fan. I REALLY want him to prove to everyone that while these stats are important and tell a lot about a player, that they aren’t the be all end all. The negative Jacobs comments are really becoming annoying. I understand that we don’t have much else to talk about this time of year, I’ve just hit my max on the subject.
In the Royals game of life, Neifi Perez is the rake.
Go to Royals Corner and read about Jacobs for 5 minutes
that will cure you…
But, no doubt, if Mike Jacobs hits 30 bombs, that will surely disprove the relative important of OBP and SLG
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Nov 18, 2008 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
I'm with you
I hope he rakes and I’ll just be talking crap the whole time (forget this comment if he doesn’t).
by I need more Esteban on Nov 19, 2008 8:56 PM EST up reply actions
Believe it or not, I hope for the exactly same thing
btw, “raking” mnean hitting 30 homers with a .300 OBP.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Nov 19, 2008 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
Heard anything negative about Billy Butler?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA43ETEU1Vg
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
To be fair to Dayton wOBA does have a problem with this.
The expected runs of different types of hits is not ajusted for batting order. It does seem logical that a homerun from a leadoff batter may not be quite as good as one from the cleanup guy, yet these are are averaged into wOBA, and so when you take the players exepected runs out of the context of batting order, he might be a bit more valuable after high OBP players. I don’t know how much that fudge factor would be, if it were high enough, I suppose player A could be more valuable to a team then player B.
Go Royals!
A Cleanup Hitter
Only bats 4th for sure one time; the 1st inning. After that, unless you’re having no offensive success at all, he’ll hit at random places in any given inning.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 18, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
but...
it doesn’t matter if he only bats 4th once…. he would always be batting behind higher OBP guys. That’s what babyblues was saying, i think.
by CollininCalifornia on Nov 18, 2008 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
That Doesn't Matter
If he leads off the inning or is batting second that inning with no one on. After the first inning the role of a batter is almost entirely random.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 18, 2008 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
The problem is not with wOBA
wOBA measures a player’s individual performance, minus the context like lineup. In other words, wOBA should be used to identify the nine most productive hitters for a lineup, not in which order they bat. Once the nine best are identified, it is a separate inquiry to figure out the best batting order to maximize run production — there are lineup calculators that can do this effectively by weighing OBA/SLG. The high SLG players may very well fit best in the middle of the lineup.
But going back to the first inquiry — who should be in the lineup — a high OBP player may very well be better than a high SLG (it really depends on the actual OBA/SLG — 10 points of OBA equals about 18 points of SLG). If you take last year’s Royals regular lineup and substitute Jacobs (247/299/514, 338 wOBA) for Gload and then Doug Mientkiewicz (277/374/379, 349 wOBA) for Gload, the lineup with Mientkiewicz would be expected to score more runs than the same lineup with Jacobs.
+1
Also note that in simulations, even the most boneheaded moves, e.g. hitting the pitcher (or Tony Pena, Jr., or, against RHP, Jose Guillen) 4th only leads to about minus 16 runs over the course of an entire season.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Nov 18, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
The #4 spot in the Royals batting order last year posted a .252/.292/.426 line last year
with 126 RBIs.
The RBI total is the highest out of that spot since the 2000 season. The SLG of the #4 spot is actually above several of the years (2007,2005,2004). However, the OBP at that spot is lower than any time in the last 10 years (probably more, I only went back 10 years).
At first, that might lead you to believe, “Hey, we’re onto something with this high SLG / don’t care about OPB in the middle of the order”. If you dig a little deeper though, there are issues with this approach —
Our #5 and #6 spots put up .284/.331/.448 and .286/.339/.451 lines last year respectively. For their above average OPSes, they had paltry RBI totals of 71 and 65, the lowest combined total in the last 10 years. The RBI total overall was 648 — the lowest of any Royals team in the past 10 years (even worse than 2005). So why weren’t those guys hitting #5 and #6 picking up the RBI? It’s not because they sucked in the clutch, or because they were crappy hitters — Those low OBP guys hitting in the #4 spot weren’t ever on base for them to hit in.* **
* Takeaway point #1: Neither Guillen nor Olivo should hit #4 unless they’re riding a huge hot streak.
** Takeaway point #2: Expecting whoever is hitting behind Guillen and Jacobs to have decent RBI totals next year is a bad idea.
My takeway point
from this is that someone like Jacobs would be better suited for the #5 or #6 spot in the order then?
I mean,
Aviles
DeJesus
Gordon
Butler
Jacobs
Teahen
Guillen
Olivo
Callapso
I mean this changes should that Teahen trade come true especially for a guy like Fontenot who’s been a pretty decent on base guy throughout his career including the minors.
Then you’d have something more like
Aviles
Fontenot
DeJesus
Gordon
Butler
Jacobs
Guillen
Olivo
and I don’t know Gathright? Felix Pie?
Regardless I think its a better lineup if you can move everybody down a bit.
But we all know Jacobs is going to bat cleanup so who cares…
by Royal from Queens on Nov 18, 2008 7:41 PM EST up reply actions
Right, so the most slug guys you would want in a lineup may be two or three
One at the 4th spot, maybe the 5th spot so that that 4th spot won’t be walked, and maybe one at the 8th spot in the lineup (cleanup hitter #2) if the rest are on base guys then the team should score a lot of runs. So you could see Guillen, Jacobs and Olivo as the slug, but then we need 6 on base guys to go with them, and I don’t know that we have enough .375 – .400 obp table setters. I am not trying to imply that the higher obp guys would do worse then the hackers in the 4th, 5th and 8th spots, only that the hacktastic slugger group is less of a burden if their numbers are kept down to three or less.
Go Royals!
It seems to me that the late, great 70's and 80's Royals teams
had great gap hitters with high OBP but not great HR numbers. This is my memory, not my numbers background, as you remember I’m not stat gifted as y’all. I’ve always thought the stadium was an advantage to that type of hitter as opposed to the ‘all-slug’ guy. Speed, defense, OBP—————-this is my impression, I have no numbers to back it up. I may be a LIAR!!!!!!
That was true, but...
First, the Royals successful teams if the mid-70’s to mid-80’s were playing in a light-hitting era. Power was down league-wide. So the lighter power that the Royals had was not wildly out of line with the rest of baseball. Second, the old artifical surface was great for line drive hitters. Just hit it towards the gap and run. Balls would skip and get to the wall quickly, easily and often. The grass surface is not well suited for that.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 7:04 PM EST up reply actions
Routine Grounders That
Made it through the IF wound up at the wall with astounding regularity in those days. The first time I went to a game at the K, I was dumbfounded to see the pitcher walking to the mound bouncing the ball like it was a rubber ball on concrete; it literally came right back to his hand. Try that at today’s K.
Because of this, Frank White literally played shallow RF most of the time, not just against LH power hitters. He revolutionized the way IF defense was played in the days of bad astroturf. Thank god it’s gone.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 18, 2008 9:12 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed.......but the size and configuration of the current park is still an advantage to the
Willie Wilsons and Hal McRaes of the world, is it not? I’ve always thought our success back then had a lot to do with the way the offensive team was constructed. Maybe it could work but DM certainly seems to be moving in another direction…….
Agreed…….but the size and configuration of the current park is still an advantage to the Willie Wilsons and Hal McRaes of the world, is it not?
Maybe to the Willie Wilsons, but not the Hal McRaes. The K has pretty big power alleys, but that’s about it. That helps gap hitters some, especially if they have speed. But it also robs them of some home runs. For guys like Hal McRae, it robs them of a lot of home runs. For guys like Hal McRae, Mark Teahen and many others who have decent but not great power (I’m not equating McRae and Teahen, by the way), the deep power alleys hurt more than they help.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 18, 2008 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
I just read that again and I find myself appalled at how much I sound like that old codger down at the Knights of Columbus
in Shawnee back in ’65. Excuse me, I need to change my Depends.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
