One move that will improve the Royals

by AxDxMx on Dec 3, 2008 11:20 AM EST Comment 68 comments

Randy Johnson has 295 wins. The Diamondbacks have publicly stated they will not re-sign him. Johnson obviously wants to finish with 300+ wins, so he wants at least one more year. Should the Royals bring Randy aboard? He pitched badly for awhile last year and then had a great stretch. 1st half of the year he had a 5.23 ERA, but the 2nd half was 2.41. His ERA+ was 117, so he's still above league average. He averaged just under 1 strikeout per inning, while only walking 44 in 30 Games Started. Even at 45, he could still be an awesome #4 starter that has the ability to be an ace every once in a while.

In games Hochevar started last year the Royals were 7-15. That's likely to improve this year, or at least we hope, maybe he should start in AAA.

In games Banny started, the Royals were 13-19. Banny was awful last year, and hopefully that improves, but he should probably start the year in AAA. Signing Johnson gives us the ability to put Luke or Banny there.

The D'backs were 14-16 in games Johnson started. I know, I know, it's not a massive improvement, but it is roughly .500 (Johnson's record was 11-10). So signing Randy would be roughly a 4 game improvement based on these numbers without getting into advanced statistics.

I just don't see how we could throw Banny and Luke back out there this year and hope the results are different, and I don't see another starter for us without signing someone. Rosa will be in our pen according to GMDM, so who else is there. And what would it take to sign Randy?

Agree or flame, discuss or disparage.

2 recs | Comment 68 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

At this point in his career

I think Randy would rather retire than pitch for us. He will either sign with a contender or call it quits.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 3, 2008 11:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

agree

i think johnson is still a serviceable pitcher, but unless he is just desperate to get 300 and no one wants him, he won’t come to KC.

Plus, rough guess, but i bet Johnson in the American league would be slightly better than Bannister and slightly worse than Hoch. How much money is that worth?

by ZeppelinDZ on Dec 3, 2008 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus

He has never pitched for the Braves, so I don’t see DM being interested in him.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 3, 2008 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I don't know

Randy’s got to be just about cooked. I mean, how many Jamie Moyers are there in the world?

I'm about to change my username to DannyDuffyfan

by jackie ballgame on Dec 3, 2008 11:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

To what ends would a Randy Johnson signing accomplish?

Greinke, Meche, and Hochevar are pretty much guaranteed spots in our rotation. Johnson would be taking away starts either from Davies (which is inadvisable, since Davies still has some upside and it looks like he may have turned a corner last season), or Bannister (who I think deserves a couple of months to show if 2007 or 2008 was the outlier). We aren’t going to contend next year, so what would signing Johnson accomplish? If we need a veteran pitcher to eat some innings while Rosa, Cortes, and Wood keep developing, we can probably do that for cheaper than Johnson. Pass.

by DarthYoshi on Dec 3, 2008 12:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Elarton!

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 3, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I said "eat" innings

not “nibble and eventually choke on” innings

by DarthYoshi on Dec 3, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He's Gil Meche

only without the strikeouts, control, GB tendency, and McDonalds-based nutrition plan. Also, for personality, substitute “annoying” for “generic.”

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 3, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I posted this elsewhere

2009 is not going to be a contending year for the Royals. In addition to the obvious rotation spots for Greinke, Meche and Hochevar, the Royals need to use 2009 to see if Davies and Bannister are sufficient major league starting pitchers. There is good reason to argue for and against both of them. They need another year in the majors to resolve this question. Adding an old, declining SP for millions would be a waste for the Royals. I’d much rather see how good Hochevar, Davies and Bannister are than get an extra win or two (maybe) from RJ. That information about what the Royals have and what they need will be very valuable as the Royals get considerably closer to contention in 2010 or 2011.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 12:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Marcels

(which, frankly, I often find more trustworthy that James) projects Johnson to be barely better than Davies and/or Bannister anyway. too lazy to look up RJ’s ZiPS projection, although I’m pretty sure it’s out.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 3, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Randy's ZiPS

149 IP, 4.51 ERA, 148 H, 43 bb, 146 K

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Marcels has Johnson considerably better than Davies and Bannister

Johnson: 7.97 K/9, 2.68 BB/9, 4.18 FIP
Davies: 6.37 K/9, 3.74 BB/9, 4.72 FIP
Bannister: 5.44 K/9, 2.91 BB/9, 4.70 FIP

by Gopherballs on Dec 3, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, I messed that up

sorry, I was mixing up the ever-so-helpful James projections for Banny and Davies with the Marcels for Johnson.

Have you seen the James projection for Johnson? That in itself is reason for me not to ever waste so much time again crunching those numbers…

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 3, 2008 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't matter if Marcels has RJ better than Davies or Banny

If we were going to contend in 2009, it would matter. But it will do the Royals more good in the long run to give Banny and Davies some innings in 2009 to see if they can hack it in our rotation in 2010 and beyond when we start contending (hopefully). NYRoyal is pretty much spot on—that is worth way more to the Royals than the extra couple of wins Randy Johnson might be worth.

by DarthYoshi on Dec 3, 2008 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Marcels projections would not be the reason why the Royals should pass

As I said a few hours ago, Johnson is not really a fit for the Royals, but he could be a good bargain for a contender because he is still a pretty good pitcher. I suppose you could make the same justification as the Octavio Dotel signing (but I was not a fan of that signing either).

by Gopherballs on Dec 3, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Dotel signing worked because he was easily flippable and the 2/3 of a season the Royals had to pay for wasn’t too steep. I have a feeling RJ is going to sign for considerably more than Dotel did.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dotel was $5 million

Johnson was asking for $8 million from the D’Backs. But, yeah, one of the California teams (he is from California, which is close to his current home in Arizona) will come up with that.

by Gopherballs on Dec 3, 2008 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Johnson arguably pitched as well as Greinke and better than Meche last year

Johnson
31 Runs Above Average (pRAA)
3.32 tRA
131 tRA+
3.83 tRA*

Greinke
26 Runs Above Average
3.74 tRA
123 tRA+
4.06 tRA*

Meche
19 Runs Above Average
4.06 tRA
117 tRA+
4.46 tRA*

Johnson’s 2008 numbers were in line with his 2005-2007 performance, so they are not a fluke. Even at his age and with his back problems, he is still a very good pitcher.

As noted above, Johnson is not really a fit for the Royals, but he could be a good bargain for a contender.

by Gopherballs on Dec 3, 2008 12:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The one big problem with Johnson

He will be a 45-year-old pitcher with back problems next year. Now he should be much better than the average 45-year-old pitcher, but still, that’s old. At that age, a pitcher can very easily go down at any time with injury. One with a history of back problems should be expected to go down with injury. I wouldn’t bet that he’ll pitch 150 innings next year. It is possible, but I can’t say it is likely. So he’s likely to be pretty good when he is pitching, but he can’t really be counted on.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's why he will come cheap

He has pitched 205, 56, and 184 innings. Marcels (which is a simple regression analysis) regresses those innings to 158 IP for 2009. The team that signs him will need a backup plan, but for a contender like the Angels or Red Sox with money and depth, that is really not a problem. I would not be surprised to see the A’s sign him.

by Gopherballs on Dec 3, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Depending on the price, he's a good signing for a tea

Depending on the price, he’s a good signing for a team set to contend in 2009 and who has the depth to back him up when/if he goes down.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree on both counts

1) that he will be a good deal and fit for someone

2) the “someone” in the above sentence is not the Royals

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 3, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by DarthYoshi on Dec 3, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Signing Randy Johnson

sounds like a Juan Gonzalez sort of move.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Dec 3, 2008 4:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Are you saying that didn't work out?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 3, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A wise man once listed that

as the 9th-worst free agent signing the Royals did.

Back when he posted to his blog with some regularity.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Dec 3, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the comments guys

But I do see the Royals contending next year. It’s really not that big of a leap. If Johnson improves us by 4 wins, that’s 79. If Hochevar and Davies improve 3.5 wins each, that’s 86. Depending on what the offense does we could have a great year. I mean the offense can’t really be as bad as it has been right? We’ve improved that haven’t we? Our division is weak compared to others and if you can get to 90 wins that’ll do it. In fact, I think it could be done with about 86-88 (Chicago and Minnesota tied with 88 this year). 13 wins is a big jump, but we’ve improved defense and our offense should be better. The Royals were 11-10 in games Davies started and were 6 games above .500 with Greinke and Meche. Our back end just needs to improve to .500. With a little more offense (bye bye Gload, TPJ) we really could make a leap. That and no more losing streaks over 3 games would help too.

By the way, I don’t think Johnson cares where he ends up, he just wants 300 wins. 1 year, $5M? Jump at that. I think Banny proved last year he doesn’t belong, don’t need to see that circus for another year.

What really drives me up the wall though, is we’ve got a guy like Kila Ka’aihue tearing up minor league pitching, and we have to make him prove he belongs here. But a guy like Banny, we say give him another big league year. He’s never proven anything except that he was really lucky with BABIP 2 years ago. I know we all love him because he is the lone stat nerd in baseball, but at what point do we just say sorry you don’t have quite what it takes? I’m not saying cut him, but at least make him prove he can get minor leaguers out, then he can come back. My bet on Banny is that he makes a better GM than he does a pitcher.

by AxDxMx on Dec 3, 2008 6:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A few things

First I think your improvement numbers are off. Johnson wouldn’t likely be a net improvement of 40 runs over the pitcher he’d replace (that’s about what it would take for him to be a 4-win improvement). Hochevar and Davies aren’t likely to improve their rotation spots by 35 runs each. Without crunching the numbers myself, I think you are way, way overestimating those numbers. Second, the division isn’t weak. It is very competitive with multiple good teams. That’s going to make it even harder for the Royals to make a big win improvement. Third, of course Johnson cares where he ends up. If he wants to maximize his wins, he’ll want to go to the team most likely to win a lot of games behind him. He also cares about money and $5M won’t get it done. $8M is more likely. Fourth Banny has had one good year for the Royals and one bad year. Why does only one of those years “prove” how good Banny is?

What really drives me up the wall though, is we’ve got a guy like Kila Ka’aihue tearing up minor league pitching, and we have to make him prove he belongs here. But a guy like Banny, we say give him another big league year. He’s never proven anything except that he was really lucky with BABIP 2 years ago.

Banny has had one good year in the majors. Kila has had one good year in the minors. See the difference? Of course Kila has to prove that he belongs. One good year in the minors doesn’t prove that you’re for real. Banny had a good major league season in 2007 and I think that should count for something. If you doubt Banny’s 2007 season was good, I’ll direct you to this post which shows that using advanced metrics Banny pitched like a #3 starter that season. So with one good season and one bad season, of course we need to decide in 2009 if he’s a decent major league starter or not.

I’m not saying cut him, but at least make him prove he can get minor leaguers out, then he can come back

Banny’s already proven that in the minors. He has a better minor league track record than Kila does. Kila is younger and has a much more spotty track record. So yeah, let him prove in 2009 that 2008 wasn’t a fluke. He doesn’t need to spend the entire season in AAA, but let’s give him some time to show a bit more than the one month he’s had so far in AAA.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought you broke up with Banny?

by Gopherballs on Dec 3, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We're just good friends

I don’t think he’s good. I also think that he probably doesn’t completely suck. Mostly I think we don’t know for sure where he is in the range between average (a #3 SP) and bad (a not particularly impressive #5 SP). That’s why it is important that the Royals take another season to figure out how good/bad he is.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He is probably south of 2007 and north of 2008

but now that he is in his arbitration years and with little upside, I would be fine punting him (or at least dropping him into Thunderdome with Davies to duel for the 5th spot) if somebody better under the age of 44 came along.

by Gopherballs on Dec 3, 2008 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bringing in a short-term space filler (somebody better under the age of 44) when you’ve got potentially decent, younger, cheaper pitchers who you need to evaluate when you are in a rebuilding year is short-sighted and wrongheaded.

Now, if you’re talking about a clearly better pitcher who isn’t too old and who the Royals could and should sign for an affordable, good value, long-term contract, then I’m with you. I just don’t see that option out there, and certainly not at a price the Royals can afford.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

um, have you forgotten the man they call

HO-RAM?

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 3, 2008 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Good for him.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 4, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm guessing that's Mrs. Ho-Ram

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And good for him, if it is

Is she someone famous, or just insanely hot?

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no idea

Great face. Can’t see the rest in that pic

/Avery

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m extrapolating from the face. And in my mind, the extrapolation works out very nicely.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"I just don't see that option out there"

This is what you said about my choice, Paul Byrd, to help the Royals contend in 2009

Byrd doesn’t "suck hard." He’s a #4/5 starter. The Royals have more than enough of those. The Red Sox used him because they got desperate and he was the best available option for them at the time. He’s not better than Greinke, Meche or Hochevar. He’s likely no better than Davies or Bannister. And Byrd is going to cost some number of millions. Why waste millions on an old, rapidly aging vet who is into his decline phase and who hasn’t been good for 3 years?

So you don’t like Byrd, or RJ. With your baseball IQ, there’s gotta be someone out there that you like. Just one more arm and one more stick will help the Royals contend in 09! Not just in 2010, and beyond. The Sox will not repeat, the Indians will rebound, Twins are pesky, and the Tigers are old. A couple of extra creative sharp moves by GMDM will make the Royals serious contenders.

by CubFreak on Dec 3, 2008 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So you don’t like Byrd, or RJ. With your baseball IQ, there’s gotta be someone out there that you like. Just one more arm and one more stick will help the Royals contend in 09!

You’re right, all the Royals need is one more arm and one more stick. All the Royals need to do is sign Sabathia and Teixeira and I think they will be in contention. Send your donations to the Royals to help make this happen.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I prefer

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 4, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I never realized that Steven Tyler was in the Pretenders

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Did he also (briefly) marry the lead singer from Simple Minds?

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who said only bring in short-term space-filler?

If the Royals have the opportunity to bring in a starter who is better than Bannister and would potentially be around for more than one year (when the Royals are hopefully contending), and without overpaying or blowing the budget, the team should do it.

I like Bannister, but he is what he is. As an above replacement back end starter who, from a skills standpoint, is already pitching at or near his ceiling and who is now into his arbitration years and no longer cheap, Bannister really should not block the Royals from adding a starter with the potential to be better than that. While the Royals need a sixth starter better than Ducky, starting pitching is not a critical immediate need, but if someone falls into their lap, they should not turn it down just to give Bannister more innings (which he likely would get anyway — Greinke/Meche/Hochevar/Bannister/Davies are not all going to make 32 starts each).

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who said only bring in short-term space-filler?

It wasn’t clear and that is why I replied to two possible meanings from your statement. But your statement about bringing in someone who is better that is under 44 seemed to imply short-term space filler. Are there any 39-44 year olds who are decent long-term options? And I’ve read your opinion of the non-elite FA SP’s on the market (like O. Perez and Garland). You clearly aren’t in favor of signing them.

If the Royals have the opportunity to bring in a starter who is better than Bannister and would potentially be around for more than one year (when the Royals are hopefully contending), and without overpaying or blowing the budget, the team should do it.

I essentially agree with that, depending on what “better than Bannister” means. Since we don’t quite know how good Bannister is, it is hard to say which pitchers are better than Bannister. There are some who clearly are, but for many of the affordable SP’s, it’s hard to say.

I like Bannister, but he is what he is.

The nature of the problem is that we don’t know what Bannister is. Above replacement? Yes. A back end starter? I assume that means #4/5. We know that? No, of course we don’t know that. He pitched at the level of a #3 in 2007 and a #5 in 2008. So from those two seasons we know that he’s only a #4 of #5? How is it that we know that?

Bannister really should not block the Royals from adding a starter with the potential to be better than that.

If it is for 3 or more years, definitely. If it is for two years, maybe.

but if someone falls into their lap, they should not turn it down just to give Bannister more innings

I agree. Depending on who that someone is.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Even in 2007, Bannister pitched somewhat below average

but thanks to unsustainably low BABIP and HR/FB rates, his performance reflected that of a little better than league average starter. A flyball pitcher with below average velocity and without a true strikeout pitch who does not miss bats (5.3% and 6.3% swinging strike rates the last two years) and exercises good but not great control is the profile of a back end starter, even with his good makeup. This is in line with scouting reports and his minor and major league performances to date. We have a very good idea of who he is.

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We have a very good idea of who he is.

I’m glad you’ve figured him out. Some aren’t so sure. I’d like to see him pitch another year and then decide how good he is. Do you have a favorite affordable, better-than-Bannister FA SP in mind?

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I recall having the same conversation about TPJ last year

Do any analysts, whether scouting- or stat-leaning, peg Bannister as something more than a potentially decent fourth starter (i.e., below average but above replacement)? The uncertainty lies in where he falls between the useful ~1.5 WAR innings eater and the replacement level starter earning arbitration money. If no one else better comes along, sure, give him the season, but it is just not a very important question either way.

I do not have anyone in particular in mind, but the talent pool is not just the major league free agents. A guy like recent rumor d’jour LHP Sean Marshall would be a nice little upgrade if he fell into the Royals’ laps. If Brad Penny’s injury concerns cause his price to fall to the incentive-based, low guaranteed salary (plus option) level, he could be interesting (depending on his medicals). His shiny win totals and ERAs from previous years, however, probably will prevent that.

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do any analysts, whether scouting- or stat-leaning, peg Bannister as something more than a potentially decent fourth starter

Quite possibly none do. But if a player with a little over 2 MLB seasons is projected to be a #4 SP, then I don’t think anyone would be shocked if he turned out to be a #3 SP. In short, it is well within the reasonable range of projection. Also, Rany likes his chances of rebouding to be a good #3 SP.

The uncertainty lies in where he falls between the useful ~1.5 WAR innings eater and the replacement level starter earning arbitration money.

I think the uncertainty lies in where he falls between an average MLB starter who eats a fair number of innings and the somewhat below replacement level starter earning arbitration money. I think there is a fair amount of uncertainty there.

I do not have anyone in particular in mind, but the talent pool is not just the major league free agents. A guy like recent rumor d’jour LHP Sean Marshall would be a nice little upgrade if he fell into the Royals’ laps.

And I certainly don’t think such a trade should be blocked by the fact that Bannister is on the team.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With all this talk about "eating"

why haven’t the Royals put in a call to Bartolo Colon?

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Only Theo is that smart

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Theo is man

You got that Chico

by CubFreak on Dec 5, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Colon worked out better than Ponson

by Gopherballs on Dec 5, 2008 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he was saying that the division is weak (or balanced) compared to other divisions.

That does seem to be true: there really is no stand-out good team we need to beat, like the Angels or, goodness-forbid, the AL East’s Big Three. Twinkies & Sox: 88 and 89 wins this year. Even mid-80’s next year and you might be in the hunt.

by Sean O Se on Dec 4, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My take on the AL Central

When the division is balanced with pretty good teams, that doesn’t make it easier to win the division; it makes it harder. It makes it more difficult to get whatever your statistically expected improvement is. What I mean by that is if you crunch all of the numbers for the Royals (as devil_fingers has been) using the best projection systems, factoring in new players and the development and decline of current players, you’ll come up with a likely improvement for the Royals in 2009. Let’s say that improvement is 7 wins (for the sake of argument). I’d discount that by one or two because of how good and balanced the AL Central is.

While any team might have a down year, I don’t think there will be any easy intra-division series for the Royals this year. And, while the whole division is pretty good, I think there is a stand-out good team to beat: the Cleveland Indians. I think probably 85% or more of the analysts will predict the Indians will win and projection systems like PECOTA will have them at 88-91 wins. While it is possible that the AL Central winner might have a win total in the mid-80’s it is extremely unlikely. And, more importantly, the overall quality of the division makes it that much harder for the Royals to have a win total in the mid-80’s.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i agree, to a large degree.

but some of that has already been factored into the 76 third-order expected wins of last year. we played in a division that had three moderately good teams (twinkies, who overperformed, evil-sox, and injuns, who underperformed), and two mildly-below-average teams (tiggers, who also underperformed, and royals, who probably played about to their level).

so our 75 wins is against a fairly balanced division—there really was no one to beat up on in the AL Central, and we should be proud that each of our wins was fought for.

now it’s true that any improvement will have to come against each of the decent teams. however, it’s not true that a balanced division makes it harder to make progress: if the royals are now officially “decent,” then a bit of luck and development in their favor will go a bigger distance than, say, a bit of luck in texas’s favor.

we’d need to win about fourteen more games, or hope that the balanced division brings everyone down from 89 to say 87, and just hope for twelve more. the rangers would need to go from about our level to 100 games. i admit the ranger’s scenario only involves two teams changing places (rangers skyrocket, angels sink like rocks) rather than us being the lucky ones among four other teams.

but i’d rather take my chances, on a one year time scale, with being a decent team and hoping to bubble to the top in a balanced division, rather than trying to make a 17 game leap up to angel’s level.

i’m sure there’re some statistics here—-i’m less sure they support me.:)

by Sean O Se on Dec 4, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but some of that has already been factored into the 76 third-order expected wins of last year.

Right, strength of schedule is part of the 3rd order wins number. If the Royals had neutral luck and played competition equal to a neutral, average strength of schedule, then they’d have won 76 games last year. When looking at next year, we should project for neutral luck, but not for neutral strength of schedule. The Royals will be playing in the AL Central again, and it will again be a good, balanced division.

now it’s true that any improvement will have to come against each of the decent teams.

however, it’s not true that a balanced division makes it harder to make progress:

if the royals are now officially "decent," then a bit of luck and development in their favor will go a bigger distance than, say, a bit of luck in texas’s favor.

I disagree. I think being in a good, balanced division makes it particularly harder to progress to the top of the division. You talk about how the Royals need both development and some luck to get over the top. That’s true. But you have to recognize that when you are in a division where the rest of the teams are either good or at least pretty good, you’ve got multiple teams who — with some luck — get themselves over the top. When several teams are in contention, then it is more likely that one will have that luck that gets them to 90 wins or so.

Regardless, a 12-14 win improvement is huge. Currently the Royals are probably about halfway there (if things go as expected, which might not happen). Getting the other 6-7 wins is very difficult. Given that, I don’t think on can seriously say that the Royals are roughly in contention.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Banny

NYRoyal,

Banny regressed to a point last year that makes me think he has zero confidence. He didn’t know what he was doing and he was playing chuck and duck with the batters. He was not a #5 pitcher last year. He was almost historically bad for a guy that got 32 starts. Look at Baseball Reference’s Pitching Season Finder. There were only about 30 pitchers since 1901 to start 100% of their games played have an ERA over 5.50 and an ERA+ under 80. The Royals scored 81 runs in their 13 wins when he started (avg of 6.2), the Royals scored 75 in their 19 losses when he started ( avg of 3.947). Bannister gave up 3.969 runs per start. When Banny started he only got to the 6th inning on average, and didn’t make it out alive (5.70 IP per start on average). I’ll agree with you that I don’t want to cut him, but getting confidence back in the minors is not a bad idea.

Back to Kila, I know he is unproven at the MLB level. I just think stockpiling 1B guys in front of him at the MLB level says that he will NEVER be given a chance. The way you talk about giving Bannister a season this year to find out if Banny is good or not seems a lot like why I want Kila here. If he can’t hack it, then we’re out what exactly? This isn’t a contending year according to most people. Why not give him the job? He definitely won’t embarrass us, and if he does, he can go back to AAA.

Anyways, just 2 months til pitchers and catchers report!

by AxDxMx on Dec 8, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You may be right about Banny. But I don’t think the problem is confidence. He’s a smart, mature pitcher. He needs to continue making his adjustments. The Royals need to see if he can adjust his way back into being a decent MLB SP. He and the Royals will only figure that out if he’s making starts in the majors.

On Kila, I agree that the Royals shouldn’t have acquired a mediocre 1B/DH ahead of him (although I wouldn’t have minded them acquiring an actually good one). The difference between Banny and Kila as far as whether they should or need to get a chance in 2009 is that Bannister is clearly “ready” while we don’t know if Kila is. Bannister is ready because he’s had a successful season in the majors and has nothing left to prove or learn in the minors. Kila has managed only one impressive professional season and that only included one month in AAA. If he’s not ready, then the harm of giving him the job is that it hurts his development. Even if the Royals hadn’t acquired Jacobs, I still would have wanted for Kila to start the season in Omaha. Let him continue to develop, learn and prove himself. Hopefully things will happen which will create enough roster flexibility by midseason that Kila can come up and get at least semi-regular playing time in KC.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 8, 2008 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bannister Out-Thought Himself

Last year. He realized his BABIP was probably unsustainable, so he tried to become more of a strikeout pitcher. This might explain some of his problems, especially in the first half of the year. He seemed to recover a bit in the second half of the year. Bannister is a low K/9 pitcher who pitches to contact and is smart enough to produce a lot of bad swings. It worked inordinately well in ‘07, but I don’t think he’s really as bad as ’08. He deserves a chance to level out as an acceptable 4/5 in ’09.

Jacobs is a cheap way to add LH power to the lineup, preferably at DH, while Kahuna gets a chance to show he’s for real in Omaha. The best case scenario is both mash, Jacobs is flipped at the deadline and Kahuna comes up to take his place. Jeeves, Lurch and Kahuna make a great 1B/DH triumvirate, balls fly out of the park at a record rate, OBA approaches .350 for the team, and everyone lives happily ever after.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 8, 2008 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Assume the Royals are "at" 76 wins.

That’s the hyper-pythag I mentioned earlier. By “at” I mean that’s a rough estimate of their true talent and is fairly repeatable now. (I know that’s a somewhat high number relative to our past, and I think the Royals are probably slightly more prone to regress than other teams. For example, I don’t think the 2003 Royals were really “at” 85 wins.)

If that’s true, and we’ve made some small improvements (which I think describes the Jacobs+Crisp moves), then I think we need to think of every season as roughly a contending season.

The best teams do a lot of work building from the bottom up, giving innings to promising youngsters, but also bring in people for one year to add some wins. Even if Randy brings in 2-3 wins for $8 million, that’s cheaper than the typical d_f figure of $4.5m / w. Davies and Banny will get their innings.

I’m not saying we’d have a chance to sign him—everyone else in baseball can see that he’s a better pitcher than Meche and Grienke, for less money, and can factor in the chance his age will finally hit.

But if we are “at” 76 wins, we need to think of every season as a possibility. Don’t mortgage the future, but don’t be afraid of a one-year deal.

by Sean O Se on Dec 4, 2008 9:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

4.5 was more last year

This year Tango has $4.84/WAR, although some say it’s $5.24. Dave Cameron is going with $5.5M because of the great free agent class, which I sort of get, but seems like the sort of subjective adjustment that gets people into trouble.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

SIGN ROGER CLEMENS NOW!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 4, 2008 12:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

In all seriousness

What about Pedro Martinez? Is he finished?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 5, 2008 9:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I Would Sign

Him in a heartbeat for 1/10.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 6, 2008 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pedro?

Oh ok a washed up Pedro over the

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton

by CubFreak on Dec 6, 2008 10:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it would not

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 6, 2008 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he would for sure rather retire than pitch for us. Somebody more prominent in the league will for sure give him an offer. Plus, we’re small market. He want the big time and he wants to contend.

by Flash1534 on Dec 8, 2008 9:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs