HardballTimes Article

by MileHighKCfan on Feb 1, 2008 4:58 PM EST Comment 15 comments

Found a write up done by Craig Brown about the 4 teams that consistenly finish at the bottom of the league. Being the knowledgeable Royals fan that I am, I just knew that our Royals would be included. Talks about our key gains and key losses using Win Shares. I was actually impressed by the knowledge of the Royals displayed in this article, albeit very short. Usually these guys don't take the time to research much more than the minimum.

Anyways, here's the link

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My only problem with that article

Key Gains: Jose Guillen (20 WS) Miguel Olivo (8 WS), Ron Mahay (7 WS)

Key Losses: Emil Brown (8 WS), David Riske (8 WS), Mike Sweeney (5 WS), Odalis Perez (4 WS), Reggie Sanders (3 WS)

Net: +7 WS

If you are going to list losses like Riske and Perez, then shouldn't you include some mention of what is really replacing them? "Key Gains" which are relevant to those "Key Losses" include Yabuta and many more innings from Greinke. Clearly they were doing just new players and players the team is losing, but it makes the "Net" quite incomplete and innacurate.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 5:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You must have skipped the 3rd paragraph

In that paragraph, he explains the criteria and that he was using 2007 Win Shares:

"The criteria in identifying 'key' gains and losses were quite simple. To be classified as a gain, a player has to be on his team's 40-man roster and have a positive Win Share total for 2007. To qualify as a loss, he must have logged time on his former team's 25-man roster last season and earned at least one Win Share."

Yabuta obviously did not meet the criteria, yet Brown prominently discusses Yabuta, including his expected role with the team in 2008.

Brown was not projecting net Win Shares for 2008, or even for the team overall. There was nothing "incomplete or innacurate [sic]" about it.

by Gopherballs on Feb 1, 2008 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Incomplete and inacurate

Yes he did define "key gains" and "key losses" and my point is that this is a poor way to describe gains and losses. He did it because it is quick and easy. But it is both incomplete and inaccurate to say that the 2008 Royals are +7 Win Shares better than the 2007 team.

Also, thanks for the spelling correction. Is that the petty direction you want to go? Shall we start correcting each other's spelling and grammar in each post? No thanks, I think I'll take the high road on that one.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh

Before you correct me again, I know it is spelled "inaccurate."

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A gentleman

sure of his argument [and himself] ought to handle a gentle correction more graciously.

by howserfan on Feb 3, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A gentleman

should avoid pointless corrections of grammar and spelling as 99% of posters on this site do 99% of the time. We're just typing these posts up quickly and not using spellcheck. Typos and minor grammar and spelling mistakes are common. What is the point of pointing them out? It was quite clear that he was just taking a dig at me.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 3, 2008 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From today

[new] Luck Hochevar?
Clever typo!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:07:02 PM EDT
[ Reply to This ]

by howserfan on Feb 4, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Difference

There's a big difference between "clever typo!" and the snarky "[sic]". Listen, this guy got into a debate with me and he didn't like how I challenged his opinions, stats, etc. so he tried to take a dig at me. I will repeat, 99% of the posters do not correct the grammar or spelling of other posters 99% of the time. There's a reason for that.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 4, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i believe he also blogs on the royals

by Will McDonald on Feb 1, 2008 5:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Is that the same Craig Brown

That writes for Royals Authority? I really like that blog.

Not as much as Royals Review of course. Is this considered a "blog" or is it more of a "forum"?

Or its a "usenet" board? Remember those? Do people still use those?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 1, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by NYRoyal on Feb 1, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If I had to guess

I would think that most of use read both. I like RA, but they generally don't get the conversation going like RR. Plus..they don't have a NYRoyal to stir things up.

by Stook on Feb 1, 2008 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs