Try Not to Look So Pretty

by royalsreview on Apr 22, 2008 1:11 AM EDT in News Comment 49 comments

Thanks to a few recent meltdowns all those nice, pretty, even awe-inspiring team pitching stats have taken a hit.

	BAA	BBs	Ks	HRs	ERA
K.C. Royals	.265	58	124	11	4.07
A.L. Average	.262	67	115	16	4.21

Still good, but not near how good things looked four or five days ago, when it looked like the Royals were going to be a late 1960s National League team. That being said, remember, it's been over a decade since the pitching staff was even above-average, much less good, so this is still considerable progress.

You can credit the bullpen for getting the Royals to 124 strikeouts so far (5th in the AL), as the 'pen has accounted for 57 of them. If you're curious, that's roughly 46% of the team's total, in 40% of the innings. One last word about the bullpen; while this is certainly a game-wide issue, it's hard to generalize too much about the bully, because there are actually two of them, the shutdown group of assassins that protects a lead (have we figured out if Rany's "Hispanic Panic" idea is insensitive, yet? I kinda think so) along with the group of scrubs randomly sent to fill time when the Royals are behind. (Or, sometimes, tied.) The recent trip featured numerous games where the Royals took a slight deficit and turned it into a laugher, and this just at the moment when we we're beginning to think the bullpen was invincible. It's somewhat fascinating that many feel Soria is too valuable as a closer to even consider becoming a starter, in light of the fact that he's pitched seven innings all year, a total which is probably a tad high since the Royals started out by winning many close games. Jimmy Gobble is still one batter short of his fourth inning of work. Again, we have a disconnect and an inability to consistently approach ideas in this sport from time to time. Hillman, and everyone else, wants pitchers to work more, last longer in games, throw more innings, etc., but for some reason Jimmy Gobble only needs to appear bi-weekly, for no more than five minutes at a time. Leo Nunez though, that dude's a horse, logging a hellish 7.2 innings to date.

While the pitching numbers have fallen back to earth, the offensive totals have just fallen further below the surface.

	BA	OBP	SLG	HRs	Rs
K.C. Royals	.259	.313	.353	9	63
A.L. Average	.261	.335	.397	16	88

Take another look at that table. The American League average is dominating the Royals. Thanks to another weekend of insanity on the basepaths however, the Royals now can claim fourteen steals as a team, which would be Nipponific, if they hadn't also been caught 10 times (thats a 58% success rate folks). Still, you just can't measure how much all that disruption on the basepaths has intimidated the opposing pitchers. Nor can you measure how distracted and anxious they've been. I'm sure psychologists around the American League have seen increased business since ole Trey showed up.

I just can't explain it, doc. Everywhere I turn, I see John Buck at the plate, with Ross Gload standing off first. Will Gload make a move, or will he stand still? It's terrifying!! I can't check my mail, I can't pay my alimony, I can't pick up fast food. And I certainly can't pitch. I know he's going to run, but ... I ... I.... just... can't.... (breaks down sobbing)

The Royals have used all the pyschological warfare on the infield to generate... oh wait, they've only scored 63 runs, a total so low it looks like they've been playing baseball on Mercury. The Royals are eight runs -- so like three games -- behind the Twins, who are not only managed by Ron Gardenhire, but who voluntarily sought Adam Everett's services. I'll keep harping on this, because I actually discovered it, but last season the Royals hit 102 homers, the lowest total in the American League since the strike year of 1994, and if you take out that year, you actually have to go back a few more years to find a more impotent team. Well, this year, the Royals are on pace to hit about 77 home runs. I think I predicted 130 or so homers as a team somewhere, but I'm starting to have my doubts.

0 recs | Comment 49 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If They Move

All the fences back another 50 feet we’ll have more than 130 inside-the-park HR’s.

Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!

by philofthenorth on Apr 22, 2008 1:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

extra info... our triples numbers are also down

basically, everything is down

i think the royals have two triples as a team

by royalsreview on Apr 22, 2008 1:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Love Billy Butler

But is he the biggest, slowest singles hitter of all time? I know he has some XBH’s, even HR’s in him. I just need to see some NOW!

Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!

by philofthenorth on Apr 22, 2008 2:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

...before he turns into Ken Harvey.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Apr 22, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blasphemy!

by djk royal on Apr 22, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think this was intended more as a dig at Ken Harvey than Billy Butler

...but I don’t know if everyone is going to read it that way.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wellllll...

Yes; I mean, Harvey was a big guy who could rake, but had no power. Power leads to walks; a lack of power drastically reduces them.

There’s two career paths for fat guys who can rake but have no power. One of those paths is Harvey, who had a career .322 OBP because he swung at everything and struck out three-four times as often as he walked. The other is this guy who also didn’t walk, but had a career .388 OBP because he only struck out 20 times a year.

I suspect the latter will be more likely, and if Billy turns into Tony Gwynn, I’m okay with that. But at present, he could go either way. It’s all going to depend on his plate discipline.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Apr 22, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The guy is my age

I think he’s got a ways to go before we right him off as a power source.

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Apr 22, 2008 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

(I should say, “If Billy’s power doesn’t develop”. Obviously, if it does, we’re not even having this discussion.)

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Apr 22, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

He actually pitched the entire game.

by srrtud on Apr 22, 2008 7:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i'm sort of spamming the message board with this thought

But in light of those offensive numbers posted above, it really, really makes sense to pick up Thomas or Bonds. Especially considering Thomas will be essentially free, and Bonds is… Bonds.

Consider our current lineup:

1B/DH Butler
1B/DH Gload
2B Grudz/Callaspo
CF DeJesus
LF Guillen (or is that RF?)
RF Teahen
C Buck
SS Pena

If we remain committed to the youth movement (and committed to our $33 million invested in Guillen) then there’s only really two positions where we can actually realistically upgrade.

Butler and Gordon are locks, and Teahen, DeJesus, and Buck are all cheap alternatives with upside left. Sure, we could upgrade there, but it would take an amazing amount of creativity by Moore to find players that will be as inexpensive and we know for certain will be upgrades. They might not be allstars, but for they are certainly bargains.

I suppose we can always trade for prospects to fill those positions, but you’re not gaining a whole lot when you already have guys that look like they could post league average or slightly above league average numbers and are costing the league minimum. Never mind that we don’t have a whole lot in the system to trade away to begin with. I think we all would be a bit disappointed if Cortes was shipped out for a guy with no established track record, only to find we’re back at the same place we were before. The only way we could really expect to improve at C, CF, or LF would be to trade for a veteran, but that would likely gut the system or remove pieces of the ML team that seem to be working for us (e.g. Nunez, Gobble, etc.)

So, where does that leave us? SS and 1B/DH.

Pena is terrible, clearly, but if he gets his numbers back to a respectable (or only slightly sub-respectable) level, then perhaps his defense makes him valuable enough to keep. That’s another debate, entirely, and I don’t feel like rehashing hit now. The real point is that there isn’t a SS on the market right now that we can pick up and we will know will be an upgrade. We’d have to trade for one, and that would deplete an already barren system.

So what we’re left with is the 1B/DH spot.

What we need to decide, though, is whether we want to win now, or play for the future.

If we want to win now, then we need to get some semblance of an offensive contribution from those two roles. Billy’s doing his part, but there’s no way you can expect to contend when you’re getting a .695 OPS out of your DH. Even if Gload weren’t slumping, it’s not like there’s a whole lot of reason to be optimistic there—his upside is capped at perhaps 12 homeruns.

Thomas or Bonds can fill that gap at DH—and if we’re really concerned about how the subsequent shift of Butler to first would affect the defense, we could always rely on Gload as a late inning defensive replacement.

And if we’re playing for the future, then guess what? Thomas or Bonds still makes sense. If either one of them is with the team they have to play DH. That means Billy Butler is our fulltime 1B, which is the smart thing to do if we want to develop him. Maybe he won’t ever become good enough defensively to warrant a permanent change, but we really can’t find out for sure until we give him a lot of time there. As long as Gload remains an option at 1B, there’s the chance that Butler’s development gets retarded. Having Thomas and Bonds on board could also help reverse the “aggressiveness” trend that seems to have taken hold of this team (Just look at Gordon’s walk rates the last few years.) I’m not sure that veteran leadership actually means anything, but if it does, they could be great examples for our younger hitters to look at when it comes to working the count.

I remember a few years ago, when the Royals were faced with a similar opportunity. Carlos Pena had just been waived by Boston or Detroit—and even though it was obvious our 1B/DH situation was horrible (Dougie, anyone?) there was reluctance by the brass and the fanbase to go after him.

It’s been a problem that’s plagued us for years, and for whatever reason, there have been those that are content to go with what we’ve got, for reasons either real or imagined. I’m not saying Thomas or Bonds will be as successful as Carlos Pena in either the shortterm (and clearly not as successful in the longterm), but it just doesn’t make sense to me that we would be willing to settle on Gload, who may very well be the worst regular position player in the majors at those two spots, continuing with the team.

We’ve got a major stain on the team, let’s do our best to clean it up.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Apr 22, 2008 7:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

yup.

The first thing I know about someone in a KC hat is that they're loyal.

by grantfunk on Apr 22, 2008 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just seems like Thomas is done.

He was horrible in spring training and has been horrible this season. Seems to have caught what ever Sheally had last year. I’m all for Bonds but not Thomas.

by TXroyal on Apr 22, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

60 ABs?

Is David Ortiz done too?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 22, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The difference is that Thomas is almost 40

Thomas is one month shy of his 40th birthday. It’s pretty common for players his age to fall of a cliff skills and production-wise. On top of that, he frequently has injury problems. Sixty AB doesn’t prove anything for any player, but you have to expect a big production drop off from a player his age. I mean, Grudz is two years younger and we’ve been predicting he’d hit the wall for the last 2-3 years.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand the age thing

But the guy is coming off a 125 OPS+ season. That should weigh a bit more heavily than 60 ABs.

I think there were off-the field concerns that led him to get released in Toronto. But I wouldn’t say Frank Thomas is “done”.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 22, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

At his age, you have to look at the trend too

2006 – 140 OPS+
2007 – 125 OPS+ (below average for a 1B)
2008 – ?

We don’t know if Thomas is done or not. But I think he’s likely much worse this season than last season, and not even primarily because of his 60 AB this season.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

125 OPS+ is not "below average for 1B"

In 2007, the average OPS+ for 1B was 115.

But more imporantly, let’s look at whom Thomas would replace.

2007 Ross Gload 95 OPS+
2008 Ross Gload 90 OPS+

Thomas is still showing the skils of a productive major league hitter. His walks are up to 15.5%, his strikeouts are up but still at a respectable 21.7% for a power hitter (for comparison, Teahen last year was 23%), and his isolated power (ISOP) of 167 would be second on the team behind Gordon.

Thomas’s skills set actually ages pretty well—high average, high walk, medium strikeout hitters. Two of his top comps, Edgar Martinez and Dave Winfield, squeezed out productive seasons at age 40.

Maybe he’s done, maybe not. But it is a pretty small risk to find out if he is better than Ross Gload.

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought you were more of a scouting guy than a stats guy

First, I was talking about starting major league 1B’s, where Thomas’s stats were below average.

Second, you talked about how you were more of a scouting guy than a stats guy and yet when you talk about his “skills” you just talk about his stats. Have you seen him this year? His bat speed is down significantly. He really doesn’t look like the same hitter out there.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Per THT, the average OPS for major league 1B was 115

The median was 108. It really is not too hard to look this stuff up, plus it saves you from making red-faced replies like the last one.

No, I said I value both scouting and stats, and stats follow skills. His bat speed is down from his peak, but he does not look late model Juan Gonzalez out there.

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you read what I said?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whoops

Hit the wrong button.

I was talking about starting major league 1B’s

The overall average takes into account everyone who played 1B last year, not just starting 1B’s. “red-faced replies”? What a joke. Feeling cranky today? Perhaps he was roughly average…and clearly getting worse.

And actually did say once that you were more of a scouting guy than a stats guy. But interestingly your analysis is always about 99% stats and 1% scouting (at most). His bat speed is down greatly. He looks like a different hitter. Who would have thought that a player would hit the wall so close to 40 years old?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, your memory is faulty

I have said that I value scouting as much as stats. I discuss stats more frequently because good statistical information is readily available, while good scouting information is not always available.

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's nothing wrong with changing your position now

I just wish that if you actually value scouting you would ever include that in your analysis.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean like the other day when I quoted scouting reports on Callaspo's defense?

Or the numerous times when I have discussed pitchers’ velocity? Or Meche’s recent command problems? Or John Bale’s pitch selection? Or the importance of two-seam fastballs? Or Jose Guillen’s lack of range in RF?

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please don't pretend that you talk about scouting 1/10th as much as you talk about stats

Please, any scouting you mention is the exception to your essentially stats-only analysis. Let’s not pretend to be something you’re not.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You made an erroneous statement about OPS+

and then an erroneous statement about what I have said about valuing stats and scouting, so now you want to distract attention from your mistakes by saying I pretend to value scouting information?

I guess in the reply (and we know there will be a reply), we will get to hear about your dog Checkers.

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're in rare form today, G

You did say that you actually value scouting more than stats. Despite your current protestations, you said it. And of course the reality is that you talk about little other than stats. Was mentioning this relevant to critically analyzing your stats-only analysis of Frank Thomas? Of course. For some reason you choose to ignore the skills he’s currently showing…and his age…and his injury history…and the fact that he is a DH only.

I guess in the reply (and we know there will be a reply)

Interesting. So I always reply and don’t let things go? Pot, meet kettle.

But I’m done now. In the reply (and we know there will be a reply) be sure to tell me that I’m “red faced” and give me a few more relevant stats (but only those stats that support your position…you can just ignore the rest, as usual. And by all means, don’t look at anything other than stats).

Bye, G.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, here is what I said (2-12-08):

“I actually value scouting as much as stats, but because good statistical information is readily available but good scouting information is harder to find, I am sure I discuss stats more frequently.”

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, and what you said was wrong

The starters get the vast majority of plate appearances. A 125 OPS+ would have placed third among AL 1B last year.

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And it would have put him roughly in the middle of the pack MLB-wide

I would suggest that you augment your stats-only analysis of Thomas and augment that with a look at his current skills…and age…and injury history.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, again

A 125 OPS+ was 11th best among starting 1B in MLB last year. Even using only starters, he would have been one spot off the top third.

A 125 OPS+ is in no way “below average for 1B.”

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Roughly average for a 1B...of course he played zero games at 1B last year

Perhaps in addition to his stats, we should also look at his true position, as well as his current skills…and age…and injury history.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You were the one who said 125 OPS+ was "below average for 1B"

In any event, Thomas would be replacing the current 1B, so it is fair to compare Thomas and Gload.

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is certainly fair to compare them

And I’m no fan of Gload. There’s no question that he’s a below average 1B. But I think we should expect Thomas to be a below average 1B also, but likely better than Gload. How much should we spend on a win-now strategy to get a moderate improvement over Gload (with significantly worse 1B defense)? And would this get the Royals into contention? I think the answer is almost certainly no.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the cost is $1 or $2m, I would like to find out

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not really that much of a trend

When you only take a look at two seasons, its not really a “trend”. His 2006 season was a simply fantastic season, its no surprise that he was going to suffer some decline. That doens’t mean we should assume he will slide even further in 2008. He may, and his age should be a big concern, but it would be a low risk (with the Jays picking up his contract), and there is little evidence that his performance has declined so much to consider him “done.” Even if his OPS+ falls another 15 points, which is dubious IMO, he’d still be a huge improvement over what we have.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 22, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not necessarily against signing him

But I wouldn’t be confident that he’d be a “huge improvement over what we have.” I can’t say I’m confident that he’d manage a 100 OPS+ at this point in his career. He might, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he didn’t. And then Moore would get bashed for wasting money on a washed up player for an ill-timed win-now strategy.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

he actually started very strong

then went on a three week slump

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

by LeoBloom on Apr 22, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

10 days ago Thomas's OPS was 801

He slumped for a week, and the Blue Jays used it as a smoke screen to bench him in order to ensure that his 2009 option did not vest.

by Gopherballs on Apr 22, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

It wasn’t really his performance that got him released. It was (a) his contract; and (b) his clash of personality with management.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 22, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Including PO's

If you included PO’s…..

The Royals have 14 SB.
The Royals have 15 CS+PO.

That’s just insane.

by bfos7215 on Apr 22, 2008 10:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

POs?

PU!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 22, 2008 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would be curious

If there were baserunning metrics out there, analyzing the cost/benefit to the Royals reckless baserunning ways. I bet Boston or Oakland have em. Maybe even the Royals.

My real worry is all this talk about “the Royals are hitting too many singles” will lead them to be even more aggressive on the basepaths. Hitting only singles is worrisome, but perhaps even more worrisome is they’re not getting on base at a very high rate overall, and when they do get on base, they shouldn’t be risking those outs.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 22, 2008 10:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs