JoePo on the Royals "Championship Caliber Guys"

by raefzilla on Mar 4, 2008 1:27 AM EST

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/03/02/ccgs-a-whole-different-look/

Part of a much longer blog entry, but earlier in the post, JoePo outlines his theory of how many Championship Caliber Guys (Players who have more than 12 Win Shares) it takes to win a pennant. This probably shouldn't be taken too seriously, but I thought it might be interesting discussion fodder nonetheless. Below is an excerpt from the section where he looks at the Royals' CCGs.

Conclusion 3. You really want four All-Star type players.

The Royals can at least give people something to think about here. They did not have a single player with more than 16 Win Shares last year but ... I think Gil Meche can move into the 20+ realm this year. I had another scout email me the other day to predict that Meche will break through: "I saw him two or three times last year, and twice he was about as good as anybody I saw all year. ... He had the best curve I saw all year. ... He's always had great stuff but I think he's figuring it out."

Gordon certainly has the talent to step into that All-Star level.

Billy Butler ... everyone here knows how much I love Billy Butler's bat. The guy can swing the bat.

Jose Guillen had 20 Win Shares last year, so he could repeat or do a little better.

And then ... Mark Teahen could certainly step into that 20+ Win Shares category... David DeJesus could do it ... I still love Zack Greinke's talent ... Brian Bannister is my favorite player in the game right now, and he had 13 win shares as a rookie ... Joakim Soria has the look of lockdown closer ... Luke Hochevar is impressing more and more people at camp.

So, wit a little imagination, you might find what Lou Brown called "three or four potential All-Stars" in there. Trouble is, none of them have actually done it yet.

Conclusion 4. You could really use 10 or 11 Championship Caliber Guys.

This is where Royals fans can really begin to hope, I think. The Royals only had six CCGs last year -- DeJesus, Teahen, Meche, Gordon, Bannister, Mark Grudzielanek. But Bill James has been saying this during the off-season -- and of course, I agree -- that for the first time in a while it looks like the Royals are BEGINNING to get to that critical mass of good players that you need to win.

I mentioned 10 players in the section above, all with, I think, the potential to be pretty good players. That's a much higher number than years' past. Mark Grudzielanek had 12 Win Shares last year, so he's an aging CCG. That's 11 potential CCGs. Tony Pena won't hit much, but his glove is good enough to possibly move him up into the CCG category. That would be 12.

The problem is the Royals right now have no margin for error, then really need 11 out of 12 guys to have good years, and it never works out that way (except for the 1991 Minnesota Twins). Someone gets hurt, a couple of guys have bad years, someone doesn't develop like you expected, someone else has a crisis of confidence ... you're never going 11 for 12 in baseball.

Still, this is why there's some hope in Kansas City -- you can at least see where the Royals are going, and how they're trying to get there. The plan is to keep adding CCGs to the team and keep developing them in the farm system. And it's a good plan.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

There's a nice win shares file

Downloadable from baseballgraphs.com. It has win shares for every team/player since the 1800s:

ftp://ftp.baseballgraphs.com/winshares/

OK, spur of the moment analysis because I don't want to start working this morning...

While it looks like, from the data for 2007 only, you need ~9-10 guys over 12 win shares, it also shows that you need at least one guy over 30. The difference between the Royals and the the other contenders (yeah, I said OTHER contenders!!!) is not the number of guys over 12 win shares - KC had 6 while DET only had 7 and CLE had 9. The difference is how much over 12 the guys at the top are.

CLE had 5 guys over 20 with 2 over 30.
DET had 3 guys over 20 with one of them over 30.
KC's top end was DJ and Teahen at 16.

For comparison:
COL had 5 over 20 with 1 over 30
NYY had 4 over 20 with 1 over 30 (AROD at 39!)
BOS had 3 over 20 and 0 over 30...

So BOS blows my whole theory. They did have 12 guys over 12 though. I started writing this looking only at AL Central teams... Oh well.

Anyway, I think that collecting 9-10 guys at 12 win shares gets us around .500+/-, but we still need that impact player or several more 12+ win share guys. Obviously, if you get that over 30 win shares guy, you've got a much better chance of post-season play.

Feel free to blast this full of holes. Like I said, it was a spur of the moment analysis.

by KC Chris on Mar 4, 2008 10:04 AM EST reply actions

I don't share his enthusiasm on Meche

who he thinks is just going to get better and better each year....

by Freneau on Mar 4, 2008 11:32 AM EST reply actions

He keeps talking about scouts fawning over Meche

In another recent post, he said that one scout told him that Meche's stuff was in the top 5 in the American League. If Meche really did fix his control last year, I think he could continue to excel.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 4, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

I think last year we saw his peak. Which was pretty good. With any kind of run support, that was 15-18 win stuff he showed last year. If he can keep that up, we got a really good deal.

To think that he could actually get better I think is grasping at straws.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 4, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

We didn't see...

...Meche's peak last year. His peak includes last year, but should extend for the next four years or so. - TL

Trust Trey and Dayton.

by timlacy on Mar 4, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions

I do

But I'm an incurable optimist.

Obviously, he'll top out somewhere, but I think he has room for improvement over last year.

I'll assume you think he's already topped out. One thing to remember is perception. Assume for a minute that he actually got some run support. Don't you think he'd pitch a little more loosely and confidently? His wins would increase (I know, terrible judge, but we're talking perception...)I would think that would only help when being judged, and Meche would be viewed as better than last year despite not really being better. So the perception that he got better, without changing anything, could still occur.

Top that off with the fact that he IS going to be even better in his second year with Bobby Mac, and who knows where he tops out???

by KC Chris on Mar 4, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions

hopefully i'm wrong

we'll see

by Freneau on Mar 4, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

A question that intrigues me,

is whether it is easier for a low payroll team like KC to win by having virtually the whole roster at min of avg, with many above avg, or whether they truly need 2-3 real stars, with the rest of the roster avg. (In other words, what distribution of winshares is best suited for compiling a winning team given certain payroll constraints?)

I think it is critical that GMDM has an answer in his head to this question, because, theoretically, it could be guiding every decision he makes.

I think NYRoyal would advocate the first theory, while I have pined for the latter. Of course, my pining may only be that - pining, and it might be too risky a strategy for a low revenue team. (Too many of your eggs in one or two baskets, if you will).

Thoughts?

by loyal2s dad on Mar 4, 2008 2:19 PM EST reply actions

Hmmmmm

That's a toughy. Quite frankly, I don't know which theory I support. While I think a team without any stars can contend and get to the playoffs, such a team would have great difficulty winning a pennant or the WS. Over the next few years, I think the Royals need to have some stars. Now, they can either come from within (Gordon, Butler, Greinke) or without (free agency or trade).

Since the Royals can afford it, I think they need to definitely sign a top tier free agent next year, hopefully bringing a star into the fold.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 4, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions

Stars

I'm going to take the team with 2-3 real stars and the rest of the roster being no worse than average. That sounds like a win-win to me. Though I'd kill for the alternative choice right now as well. The Rox last year were the average team with a few guys above average, they had a nice run and some good luck and made the WS. But when they faced a team like the BoSox who had a roster that was a minimum of average and then had 2-3 real stars, it was lights out Rockies.

by MileHighKCfan on Mar 4, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions

Plus

I don't think that win shares really account for a certain team getting hot in the pennant race. So while a group of dudes could play average ball all year, come September and October a few start to play like 30-40 win share guys. Not too unfathomable.

Anyway, I think it really takes a combination. For us to win in our division, we need a 30+ guy and more than a handful of 12+ guys. Look at Cleveland. 2 guys over 30 and 9 over 20! I don't think we're going to compete with that if we field 10-15 DeJesus/Teahens. It would be a pretty fun team to watch most of the time, but I think we'd have a hard time winning our division.

If we were going to try and win a different division, we could probably get by with the 10-15 DJs. I must admit here that I haven't looked it up, so I could be wrong...

by KC Chris on Mar 4, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions

The advantage of having 2-3 real stars

is that they sell more tickets and merchandise, thus increasing revenue, thus leading to more payroll money.

by jbrocato on Mar 4, 2008 8:39 PM EST up reply actions

depends on your division context

the AL Central used to be much weaker... some of those pennant winning Twins teams weren't much better than what we have now

by Freneau on Mar 4, 2008 4:25 PM EST up reply actions

I think the trick

is to have more than one "star" (over 30) because if you rely too heavily on one person and they pull a hammy or whatever the hell Juan Gone did, you are SOL. Can we develop two of these, or does it require going out and getting someone as a free agent?

Success is counted sweetest by those who ne'er succeed. - Emily Dickinson

by buddyball on Mar 4, 2008 10:18 PM EST reply actions

Well....

Here's what Cleveland has & how they were obtained (per baseball cube):

Martinez - 31 (undrafted FA)
Sizemore - 31 (trade)
Sabathia - 24 (draft)
Peralta - 22 (undrafted FA)
Carmona - 22 (undrafted FA)
Hafner - 17 (FA)
Betancourt - 15 (FA)
Garko - 13 (draft)
Blake - 12 (FA)

And Byrd fell just under the list at 11 (FA).

by KC Chris on Mar 5, 2008 9:20 AM EST up reply actions