At what point should we take this team seriously?
by Scott McKinney on Jun 23, 2008 11:33 PM EDT
Email
PrintAs we all know, the Royals dug themselves a huge hole in late May with their 12-game losing streaking, dashing whatever bits of hope we had that they might contend this year. By the end of May, the Royals definitely looked like a crappy team and I'm sure many of us concluded that this was going to be just another horrible Royals season where they maybe played well enough to avoid 100 losses.
But, slowly, they appear to be digging themselves out of that hole. The Royals have won their last 3 series and 9 of their last 11 games. The hitting and pitching are both clicking. So at what point should we take this team seriously? And by that I don't mean take them seriously, as in they are a contending team. How long would they have to play well before we think that maybe this isn't an awful team and maybe they are good enough to finish the season within sniffing distance of .500?
I don't really have an answer to this question. That's why I'm bringing it to the Royals Kingdom/Empire/Principality/Hegemony. What do you think? If they are 5 games under .500 at the ASB, should we take them seriously then? Any thoughts?
201 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I say
enjoy it while it happens!
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
That much I can handle
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 23, 2008 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions
No.
This team should not be taken seriously yet. Those who want to take this team seriously act as though the twelve-game losing streak is one aberration in an otherwise fine season, but that is not the case. The team has put together several winning streaks which should have more than canceled out the big losing streak, but the fact remains that the Royals have not played well consistently at all. When they were not on an official winning streak of some sort, they were losing more than they were winning, and that will probably continue.
I expect more of the same in 2009 unless the Royals are able to sign Mark Teixeira next year.
But the question was, at what point should we take them seriously?
Isn’t there some amount of winning, some number of games under .500, some record at which they would have earned being taken seriously? If so, what is it?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions
2 games by the ASB
But I won’t really believe this is a .500 team unless they make it happen.
I'd be happy if they finished the season a game or two under .500
(and that’s why I said “within sniffing distance of .500). So, if they were 5 games under .500 at the ASB, I’d take them seriously. I mean, if they can go 5 games under .500 pre-ASB, is it really that crazy to think that they might go a few games over .500 post-ASB?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions
+1, sorta
I would also be mildly happy if this team finished a game or two under .500.
It isn’t crazy to think that this team could have a better second half. We agree on that much.
The problem is that it’s not terribly likely. This team has already had the benefit of getting off to a great start plus the benefit of playing a fairly easy interleague schedule. If the Royals were really anything close to a .500 team, then they would have the wins to prove it already.
Here is a short list of a few things which must happen in order to make the Royals a near-.500 team in 2008:- Jose Guillen must continue his torrid streak all year and never hit like a minor leaguer again, including the cold month of September.
- Mark Teahen must reproduce his 2006 season.
- Alex Gordon must improve substantially rather than mildly over last season.
- John Buck must get his leg-kicking groove back.
- Ross Gload must hit like a real major leaguer.
- Mike Aviles must be this good or Alberto Callaspo must be that good.
- Bannister must finish with another sub-4.00 ERA season.
- So must Meche.
- Greinke and Soria can’t lose any ground.
- Hochevar and Davies must be decent #4 and #5 starters from now on beginning tomorrow.
Well...
I think we’d be over .500 if all those happened…and probably contending for a division title. I’m not kidding at all either.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
Jinx
I was typing that when you were posting it.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
In order for the Royals to finish with a .500 record, they must go 47-38 in remaining games. That’s slightly better than a 55% winning percentage, which would in fact lead the AL Central Division with all things being equal.
No, we're not saying that
If all of those things happened, we wouldn’t go 47-38. The Royals record would be much better than that, so much so that it would get us into playoff contention. Basically you’ve got Meche and Bannister pitching like #1 or very, very good #2’s for the remainder of the season (which is what it would take for them to finish with a sub-4 ERA), Greinke continuing to pitch like an ace, Soria continuing as a dominant closer, Aviles continuing to be a .975+ OPS hitter, a decent hitting first baseman, Teahen turning into a power slugger, Guillen being one of the best hitters in baseball, plus improvements from Gordon and Buck. That’s not a 47-38 team. It’s much, much better than that.
So no, they don’t have to do all of those things to get to .500. That’s not even close to realistic.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't know about that
If the Royals were really anything close to a .500 team, then they would have the wins to prove it already.
It’s not uncommon for a team to have a better second half than first half. It doesn’t make sense to say that if a team is 9 games under .500 on June 24, then they’ve proven that they can’t get to .500.
Here is a short list of a few things which must happen in order to make the Royals a near-.500 team in 2008:
All of those things must happen? All of them? If ALL of those things happened, this team would get back into contention and probably make it to the playoffs. If all of those things happened, we’d be a hell of a lot more than 9 games over .500 from here on out. You just basically rattled off the best case scenario for most of the regulars on this team. And by best, I mean best by a huge margin.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
maybe we should look at it like...
this hot streak has kinda cancelled out the three weeks of suckitude we saw earlier…
Agreed
What is important is what happens between now and the ASB. Do the Royals keep rolling, winning series and making a legitimate run at .500 or is it a brief peak followed by more extended suckitude?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions
All of them
I’m only speculating about the 2008 Royals here, and they happen to have a significantly tougher second half coming up. Did you see the SF series? That should have been a sweep, and the Royals barely won it after allowing 10 runs to a pathetic excuse of an NL team at home with the DH. Even when the results were good, the team wasn’t playing particularly well.
If all of those things happened, the Royals would be more like the Yankees, at best. They are 3rd in their division, not in contention for anything right now, and dealing with injuries to key players just after getting out of the cellar. The Yanks are underperforming with far more talent than the Royals, and they might not post a 55% winning percentage this year even though they’re much closer to that right now.
I know those are best-case scenarios for those players, and so is a .500 record for this team. It would be a major step for this team to play .500 ball the rest of the way let alone .553+. Maybe all of them are not absolutely necessary, but several combinations of, say, 80% of those items would still leave plenty of room for the team to lose. The expectations for Alex Gordon must be met NOW if this team is going to contend in the next three years, especially. He’s looking more like a career league-average sort of player rather than an All-Star or superstar as we had all hoped he would become.
If all of those things happened...
If all of those things happened, the Royals would be more like the Yankees, at best.
Yeah, they’d be the Yankees but with a much, much better pitching staff. If all of those things happened, the Royals would have three aces in the rotation for the rest of the year with a bullpen a hell of a lot better than the Yanks has been.
I know those are best-case scenarios for those players, and so is a .500 record for this team.
.500 is possible. Not likely at all, but possible. It is not what would happen if the best case scenario happened for every player (or even every regular). If the best case scenario happened for all of those players, we’d go well over .500 for the season. Your estimations of what it takes to go nine games over .500 for 85 games are way, way off.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, they’d be the Yankees but with a much, much better pitching staff.
And a much, much worse offense.
Let’s face it, offensively:
Posada > Olivo, much less Buck
Giambi >> Gload
Cano < Grudz
A-Rod >> Gordon
Damon < Guillen
Cabrera < DDJ
Abreu >> Teahen
Matsui >> whomever’s left to DH
Which I guess leaves the question of whether you’d rather have Jeter or Aviles, although Aviles is kicking his ass right now.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
But we're talking about ninja's must-haves
He’s talking about Teahen repeating an .874 OPS (which would beat the hell out of Abreu’s .768. He’s talking about Guillen continuing to hit like this with no bad months, which would make him a hell of a lot better than Damon. He’s talking about Buck getting his hot hitting stroke from 2007 back. He’s talking about Gload being a decent major league hitter. He’s talking about big improvements from Gordon. Add in all of Ninja’s must-haves and the the Royals offense wouldn’t be much worse than the offense the Yankees have shown this season.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions
He’s talking about Teahen repeating an .874 OPS (which would beat the hell out of Abreu’s .768.
Bobby Abreu is no more a .768 OPS hitter than Teahen is a .600 OPS hitter. It’s foolishness to expect Teahen to peak out while expecting Abreu to bottom out.
He’s talking about Buck getting his hot hitting stroke from 2007 back.
Which would merely make Posada > Olivo or Buck rather than > Olivo, much less Buck.
He’s talking about Gload being a decent major league hitter.
And he’d still suck compared to Giambi.
He’s talking about big improvements from Gordon.
...and we’re still talking about A-Rod.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
Hypotheticals
Bobby Abreu is no more a .768 OPS hitter than Teahen is a .600 OPS hitter. It’s foolishness to expect Teahen to peak out while expecting Abreu to bottom out.
No one is expecting Teahen to repeat his peak. These are hypotheticals. Ninja was talking about what would be necessary for the Royals to get to .500. So IF Teahen turned into that .874 OPS hitter again, I think he would be better than Abreu. As far as how good Abreu is, his OPS fell to .814 last year at age 33 and it has so far fallen even farther at age 34. I don’t know how real his decline is, but I think the days of him managing a .874 OPS are well behind him.
As for the Buck, Gload, and Gordon improvements, they would all be a part of a major improvement to the Royals offense which, when taking into account Teahen’s massive hypothetical improvement, no drop off from Guillen, and no drop off from Aviles would make the Royals offense not much worse than the offensive performance we’ve seen from the Yankees so far this season. Again, Ninja was saying that these improvements would make the Royals basically as good as the Yankees have been so far this year (he was trying to make the point about what kind of winning percentage a team of that quality would have, so he was using the Yankees and their current performance and winning percentage), not how good they should expect to be for the remainder of the season.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:12 AM EDT up reply actions
You could easily be wrong.
The Yankees’ OPS+, as a team, is 107, and that’s with (a) none of them playing way over their heads and (b) Cano turning into a pumpkin.
The Royals’ OPS+, as a team, is 87, and that’s with two, possibly three, already channeling their inner MVP.
I am all for optimism and reason. I do not believe this to be a poor offensive team, in terms of 78% of the lineup at least. I believe this team can get to .500.
And there’s no way in hell the Royals offense is going to get anywhere near the Yankees offense, even with everything working out as above. Thinking that it will goes beyond rational optimism and into manic exuberance.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
Jon
And there’s no way in hell the Royals offense is going to get anywhere near the Yankees offense, even with everything working out as above. Thinking that it will goes beyond rational optimism and into manic exuberance.
This has nothing to do with optimism. We’re talking about hypotheticals which flatly are not going to happen. But if all of those things happened (Aviles at a .975+ OPS, Guillen’s OPS going up and up as he has more months like May and June and no more like April, Teahen’s OPS going up to .874, plus significant improvements from Gordon, Gload and Buck), then the team OPS+ would easily be up over 100.
As I said, I don’t think any of those things are going to happen (some improvements from Gordon and Buck are possible, but probably nothing really huge). But if you take the hypothetical and do the math, we’re looking at an offense not much worse than the offensive performance of the Yankees so far this season.
We’re talking about hypotheticals here, not predictions. Ninja’s must haves aren’t about what will happen. And we’re talking about a comparison to the 2008 NY Yankees through June 23, not how they’ll perform for the remainder of the year.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I wish I shared your optimism
they’d be the Yankees but with a much, much better pitching staff.
The Royals would need to play better than the Yankees have so far in order to finish with a .500 record. Even if all of the things I outlined happened, the KC offense would not match the NYY offense. The KC pitching would need to be slightly better to be equally efficient, and it would probably be very similar in quality while losing a few more games because of the offense.
My expectations were about the same or lower than the current NYY pitching staff. Pettitte, Wang, and Mussina combine for an ERA right around 4.00 while Rasner and Chamberlain outperform Hoch and/or Davies tremendously. Mo is mo’ effective than Soria at the moment. Maybe the rest of the Royal pen makes up for some of that, but even if all of my criteria were met, it would be very close between the Royals and Yanks in terms of pitching. Personally, I’d rather have 4-5 strong starters, a better closer, and a mediocre pen than 3 strong starters, 2 weak starters, an excellent but worse by comparison closer, and better middle/long relief.
All of my benchmarks are reasonable. I didn’t set the bar beyond what any of them were capable of producing. Nobody can regress on this currently losing team if it’s going to get better.
Even after a couple of great months, Jose Guillen only has a .313 OBP. What will it drop to when he cools off? Somewhere in the TPJ 2007 range? Fans and the front office can and should expect better from him. He hasn’t made up for his awful April yet.
When I wrote that Ross Gload needs to hit like a major leaguer, I meant his career .290-something average with what little power he has, which would still be a glaring weakness at the major hitter’s position (can Costa play first?).
If Alex Gordon doesn’t improve considerably this year, then GMDM doesn’t have the nucleus of talent that he and others may have thought he had. There will be no point in signing a FA like Teixeira in the offseason to try to contend by 2009-2010 unless Gordon is a true franchise player, and it may be impossible to win the Glass family’s approval on a FA like Teixeira while the team underachieves. By that standard, the Royals would need to overachieve to get to .500, which is correct.
In order for the Yankees to finish with a winning percentage around 55% and contend, they only need to improve by a handful of games with a ton more talent than the Royals have. The Royals must improve by several leaps and bounds overnight to play like a contender from this point forward in order to finish at .500. Royals fans are so used to losing that we forget how good a .500 team really is.
Expectations for Gordon
How about something between Ryan Zimmerman and Ryan Braun?
Um...
let’s just let the guy continue to improve and see what we’ve got. And Ryan Braun isn’t a 3B anymore.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Comparisons are always unfair
In this case, those were the other two guys the Royals could have drafted. “He’s 24” doesn’t mean much when all of them are similarly aged and have excelled.
I used to think that Gordon would be at least as good as Gary Gaetti, but maybe he’ll be no better or not quite as good. It’s tough to imagine Gordon being as good as Dean Palmer right now, too. If he’s not at least as good as either of those, then he may not be the sort of player one builds a winning team around after all, and then what?
Gordon was selected with the first premium pick the Royals had had in years with no signability limits. The expectation for that sort of pick is considerably higher than with 2nd rounders and beyond, and rightly so.
Ryan Braun’s current defensive position is completely irrelevant. I won’t be surprised if Gordon is moved to the OF or 1B within the next two years anyway.
Heh
Gordon is not switching positions. Period. Don’t make off the wall statements to prove a point.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
Not off the wall
Actually, it wasn’t even my statement. I read that was a consideration with Moustakas moving to third. Somewhere else I’d read or heard that Gordon may move to first if Billy can’t play there and the Royals don’t sign a 1B FA. I didn’t simply make it up.
You read that who was considering that?
The Royals organization has not said anything about Gordon moving from third base. Random internet speculation doesn’t count for much.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
???
I did not declare that Alex Gordon would change positions. I did not claim that the Royals organization said so, either (although Deric Ladnier had in fact speculated that Gordon may move to the OF or 1B when he was drafted, and Gordon did in fact play at 1B some last season). I said I wouldn’t be surprised if Gordon was moved elsewhere sometime, and I won’t be.
All of this started because I wrote that which position Braun or Gordon currently plays or would play is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to which one is more talented or useful to the team or which one I’d rather have on the team right now or which one is a legitimate franchise type of player so far.
What you said
“I read that was a consideration with Moustakas moving to third.”
And I pointed that no one in the Royals organization has said anything about Gordon moving from 3B, and especially not so they could make room for Moustakas at 3B.
All of this started because I wrote that which position Braun or Gordon currently plays or would play is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to which one is more talented or useful to the team
What position they play is ALWAYS RELEVANT to how useful they are to their team. A player with an .800 OPS at one position can be way above average for his position or well below average for his position, depending what position he plays. Position matters….greatly.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
What I'm saying: Braun > Gordon
2007: both played 3B. Gordon struggled. Braun was a phenomenon.
2008: they play different positions. I’d still prefer Braun. All it would mean for the Royals is Teahen at third and Braun in the OF this year, so it would in fact be completely irrelevant for the Royals. They would be a more talented and productive lineup with Braun vs. Gordon, and any change in defense would be outweighed by the offensive improvement.
Onward: Braun probably continues to be a perennial All-Star franchise player and hopefully Gordon is eventually more than just OK or even good.
You once said that the Royals need to develop stars, and you were right. Gordon and Hochevar need to be stars, not league-average players.
Does every good young player need to be a star?
Butler too? I’d love for them all to be stars, but no team has every good young player turn into a star. They certainly don’t both have to be stars for the Royals to get to .500 this year. Arguably the Royals need Gordon to be a star for the Royals to get into contention next year, but maybe not depending on the rest of the team. Given the quality of the rotation, Hochevar definitely doesn’t need to be a star for the Royals to contend.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 25, 2008 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Hochevar and Gordon
were 1st and 2nd overall picks, respectively. Most teams develop stars without such high picks anyway, and the Royals needed to get more than a #4 starter and an average-ish 3B who is still aspiring to eventually hit for more power than Mark Teahen once did. Stars went in the first round of each draft, but the Royals apparently didn’t get them.
If neither of these guys are stars, then who do you expect the Royals to develop?
GMDM’s 5-year plan was to contend by 2010. Without better performance from Hoch and Gordon, not only is it not happening, but it’s probably not worth buying FA’s to put around them. The worst lesson the Royals can teach David Glass is that his money is not well-spent (and therefore never worth dipping into ever again) whenever he loosens the purse strings.
Where they were drafted is irrelevant to their importance to the team
The Royals needed to get more than a #4 starter and an average-ish 3B
The good news is that they probably will. They are both very young with Gordon in his second season and Hochevar in his rookie season. One should expect players of that age and inexperience to improve over the next handful of years. One certainly shouldn’t look at a player’s rookie peformance (Hochevar) and then assume that is the pitcher he’ll be for the remainder of his career. It usually doesn’t work out that way.
If neither of these guys are stars, then who do you expect the Royals to develop?
I didn’t say that neither of those guys would be stars, did I? I said they didn’t necessarily need for both of them to become stars. Oh, and by the way, lots of analysts think Butler will become a star too.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 25, 2008 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Stat Ninja
The Royals do have a couple stars already in the rotation and bullpen so the pressure shouldn’t be that high on Hoch. If he can develop into a nice #2-3-4 option then I think you have succeeded with that #1 pick. Look at the win totals of #1 picks in the past they aren’t fantastic. You can’t just pick out TL and Braun and say the Royals failed because if that is the case what did the other teams do around them they failed too. The draft is a hit and miss gamble and for the Royals to have their last 3 selections all playing significant playing time in the majors then I think they’ve succeeded. Look at draft past (Lub, Stodolka, Griffin). KC has a star pitcher in Greinke if Hoch can be a #2,3,4 (which he has showed glimpses of) then KC is on the right track.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
+1
and further, it’s been said, but implying that a rookie like Hochevar is done developing and can’t get better is just misguided. Will he continue to pitch like this the rest of his career? Maybe. Could he get better as he learns to be a professional and develops secondary pitches more? Maybe. We don’t know, though, and we especially cannot know that based on 13 starts in his rookie season.
by I need more Esteban on Jun 25, 2008 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions
+1
Saying that you heard somewhere that Gordon might move off third doesn’t contribute anything to your argument. And positions certainly do matter…LFs are held to a higher standard with the bat than 3Bs.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Perhaps the point was that if you hit like Braun...
even as a LF you are still more valuable than Gordon at 3b.
Perhaps he should've said that
if that was indeed his point.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Perhaps he did
All of this started because I wrote that which position Braun or Gordon currently plays or would play is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to which one is more talented or useful to the team or which one I’d rather have on the team right now or which one is a legitimate franchise type of player so far.
But I've already
said that position DOES matter. I was arguing against that point.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Yeah, except he didn't
Position is extremely important in determining a player’s value.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Comparing them to the average
Hooch and Davies are already are good back of the rotation guys.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
So far he's been much better than the average #5 starter
And I’m not just talking about ERA. His peripherals have been poor, but when you look at the entire combination of stats (ERA, K’s, BB’s, HR’s FIP, LD%, etc.) he’s been an above average #5 SP.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
He's pitched 26 innings and has more walks than k's.
He’s always lacked control so like I said above, calling him a good #5 is getting way ahead of yourself.
djk royal...
the league average fifth starter in the AL is terrible. For a fifth starter so far, Davies has been perfectly acceptable.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Key phrase "so far".
His control issues makes me skeptical.
It accurately describes what he's done so far, as compared to other MLB #5 SP's
3.12 ERA and then even with his poor peripherals, his FIP is still 3.59. Now all of that has to be taken with several grains of salt because the LD% is high and he’s not getting a huge amount of groundballs. But, taking all of this into account you still have a clearly above average #5 SP, even when his ERA goes up, which it will.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Clearly it does not.
Nothing about poor peripherals and a poor overall MLB track record and control issues say that he will clearly be an above average #5 SP. He may end up being one as he has always had stuff. But that is hardly a sure or predictable thing.
Again,
Davies could regress a ton and still be good vs. other fifth starters.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Well sure but the point is that no one can say
with any confidence the level of which that regression will be.
What part of "accurately describes what he's done SO FAR" do you not understand?
That’s what I said and that’s what I meant. You are right that he could go in any direction from here. But if he continues to pitch with the kind of peripherals he’s had so far, he will continue to be a better than average #5 SP.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Did you read your comment?
But, taking all of this into account you still have a clearly above average #5 SP, even when his ERA goes up, which it will.
You are pontificating on his future ERA and performance. Which would seem to not be in line with your
SO FARsnarkiness.
But if the current peripherals continue
Davies COULD still be a good fifth starter. Right now, he HAS been a good fifth starter. These things are not exclusive. You can say one and still say the other.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
He could be a good fifth starter yes.
I’m just skeptical. Keep in mind he is a flyball pitcher that has yet to give up a HR. Combine that with a high WHIP and you’re asking for trouble.
I've kept this stuff in
mind.
A 5.00-5.25 ERA looks about right to me.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Actually I was describing what he's done, not what he will do in the future.
I emphasized SO FAR to show that I was talking about what he has done…so far.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
We'll see
Either or both have a long way to go to muster a 2:1 K:BB ratio and at least 5K/9IP in order to sustain anything close to league average by season’s end. Right now, Davies looks a lot like Jimmy Gobble’s good stretch when he was first starting. So far, Hochevar isn’t as good as the young pre-injury Scott Elarton, who had at least pitched well in the minors.
Hochevar is pitching better than an average #4 SP right now
...at least, if one is going by the stats.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure
...and the peripheral stats suggest that he won’t be able to keep it up without a significant improvement.
Stil, the original comparison was to the Yankees, not to the league average, for the sake of this discussion about what it would take to miraculously play like a contender to finish at .500.
No
Hochevar’s ERA and peripherals are better than an average #4 SP right now.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Officially
Hoch doesn’t qualify for ERA ranking. His K/BB and K/9IP are not at all league average, and his ERA+ is 88 according to baseball-reference.com.
Again, this discussion was about what it would take for the Royals to win 55% of their remaining games, not about how wonderfully close to average for a back-of-the-rotation non-contributor their first overall selection of the 2006 draft is.
Hochevar
Officially
Hoch doesn’t qualify for ERA ranking
Right, and that is irrelevant to the issue of whether he is pitching above or below average for a #4 SP.
His K/BB and K/9IP are not at all league average, and his ERA+ is 88 according to baseball-reference.com.
You do realize that an average #4 SP has stats which are below league average, right? And you’re ignoring the importance of groundball rate.
Again, this discussion was about what it would take for the Royals to win 55% of their remaining games
I realize that is where this discussion started. And then when you inaccurately replied to NHZ about the quality of Hochevar and Davies starting pitching, I corrected you. Oh, and referring to Hochevar as a “non-contributor” shows alarming ignorance.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Hochevar and Davies
Officially, neither qualify for ERA. This is a fact and a reminder of the small sample sizes we’re dealing with. The best thing these guys have going for them is their respective ERA’s, and because of the small sample sizes and bad peripherals, nobody intelligent is going to celebrate their success or even expect much to celebrate from either of them in 2008.
Of course I realize that a league-average #4 or #5 starter has less than league-average numbers. Again, this conversation was about what it would take for the Royals to win 55% of their remaining games. I’m of the opinion that Hoch and Hiram are getting worse, perhaps below average even for #4 and #5 starters. How bad was Tomko’s 6+ ERA? Hiram’s career ERA is 5.98, so he could easily regress to that. Hochevar’s MLB WHIP is only slightly worse than his unimpressive WHIP in the minors. And so on.
I’m not ignoring GB/FB, but I think WHIP is a better indicator with these sample sizes. GB/FB is more appropriate for evaluating one or several complete seasons, like when evaluating a FA candidate.
The perfectly average team doesn’t necessarily reach .500, and you’re asking for more than that. A playoff team needs a #4 starter worthy of starting game 4 of an ALDS or ALCS or WS, not just a league-average #4 starter, and the Royals need to play like that sort of team to win 55% of their remaining games.
If Bannister doesn’t improve overall, then Hoch or Davies would need to step up to his criteria I’d outlined above, and there is virtually no chance of that.
I realize that is where this discussion started. And then when you inaccurately replied to NHZ about the quality of Hochevar and Davies starting pitching, I corrected you.
I don’t believe I’ve replied to anything from NHZ on Hoch/Davies. Are you sure you didn’t mean djk royal?
I had referred to Hiram’s stats when discussing Hoch at one point, my bad. Hiram’s the one with the awful K/BB and K/9IP while Hoch is the one with the awful WHIP. Both profile for something worse, not something better.
Did you remember to say “by the hammer of Geldar…” when you corrected me?
Oh, and referring to Hochevar as a "non-contributor" shows alarming ignorance.
O NOES! UR ALARMEDELEVENTY1
Seriously, as a #1 overall pick and Boras bonus baby, the Royals need to get more out of this investment than a kinda sorta maybe OK #4 starter with no great track record of success at AA and above who is likely to regress further below the mean at any given time. That level of talent is found in the scrap heap every year. Hoch isn’t young-young (he and Hiram are slightly older than Greinke), but he could still improve, and he’d better improve if the Royals are going to compete by 2010.
by Stat Ninja on Jun 25, 2008 1:51 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sigh
Officially, neither qualify for ERA. This is a fact and a reminder of the small sample sizes we’re dealing with.
Indeed. And the fact that we’re dealing with a small sample size doesn’t help your argument or mine. It just shows that we can’t draw great conclusions about their future from this data. But we can analyze the data to see how they’ve done over that sample.
The best thing these guys have going for them is their respective ERA’s, and because of the small sample sizes and bad peripherals, nobody intelligent is going to celebrate their success or even expect much to celebrate from either of them in 2008.
We’ll start with Davies. No one is celebrating his success. What I and others in this thread have said is that the entirety of his stats (ERA and peripherals) show that he has pitched better than an average #5 SP. If he continues to pitch the with same peripherals for the rest of the season as he has so far, his ERA will go up, but the entirety of his stats will still be better than an average #5 SP. I’m not making predictions. I’m just describing what his performance has been so far.
And then Hochevar. I love your “nobody intelligent is going to celebrate their success or even expect much to celebrate from either of them in 2008.” Wow. So no one intelligent expects anything good from Hochevar this season? No scouts, no analysts? Of course that is pure bullshit. And you think his stats so far are “nothing to celebrate”? If all you know is ERA, WHIP, K’s and BB’s, then you need to read up on stats, Ninja.
ERA 4.86
FIP 4.53
K/9 5.76
BB/9 4.35
HR/9 0.90
BABIP .307
LD% 15.3%
GB% 52.8%
The ERA/FIP combination is better than average for a #4 SP. The K’s and BB’s are unimpressive, but his very low LD% and high GB% show that he’s inducing lower percentage contact at a high rate and that his BABIP is high to a flukey/unlucky degree.
These stats, so far, for a rookie are very good. It’s a very good start in the first half of his first major league season. I don’t know what your expectations are for a rookie, but if you expect them to step up and be front-of-the-rotation guys right away, your expectations are unrealistic. Sometimes that happens, but usually it doesn’t. Usually pitchers that eventually develop into very good MLB pitchers don’t start out as very good MLB pitchers in their rookie season. There’s a developmental curve, not a flat line.
Again, this conversation was about what it would take for the Royals to win 55% of their remaining games.
We started talking about that and then others including djk, me and NHZ were talking about how good Hochevar and Davies are.
I’m of the opinion that Hoch and Hiram are getting worse, perhaps below average even for #4 and #5 starters.
We’ll see where they go for the remainder of the season. Davies ERA is clearly going to go up. But their overall stats (even if you completely ignore ERA) are better than the average for a #4 and #5 respectively.
I’m not ignoring GB/FB, but I think WHIP is a better indicator with these sample sizes. GB/FB is more appropriate for evaluating one or several complete seasons, like when evaluating a FA candidate.
You’re entitled to value whatever stats you like, but WHIP is no more telling in small sample sizes than in large ones. And you need to read up on the research which shows quite clearly that pitchers, in general have little affect on what happens to balls put in play. So, showing how many hits they’ve allowed is not a particularly meaningful metric. That is why you have to look at BABIP, LD%, GB%, etc. As I showed above, his high GB% and low LD% tells you that many of the hits he’s allowed have been flukey/unlucky and that if that kind of pitching continues, he’ll be allowing fewer hits (because extreme GB pitchers are one of the few kinds of pitchers who can actually consistently affect their BABIP). So, hang your hat on WHIP if you like, but no serious analyst would agree with you.
A playoff team needs a #4 starter worthy of starting game 4 of an ALDS or ALCS or WS, not just…
Ok, I’m done discussing your “all of these things have to happen for the Royals to have a .550 winning percentage for the rest of the season.” It’s very clear that if all of those things happened, all of those massive improvements and best case scenarios, the Royals winning percentage from here on out would be way higher than .550. Your estimation of what it would take for the Royals to get to .500 overall is way off. Clearly you disagree, but your math is off by a great deal.
I had referred to Hiram’s stats when discussing Hoch at one point, my bad. Hiram’s the one with the awful K/BB and K/9IP while Hoch is the one with the awful WHIP. Both profile for something worse, not something better.
When you say that “Hochevar profiles for something worse, not something better,” you have nothing to support that. If you think his WHIP supports that then your lack of statistical knowledge is really surprising for someone who calls himself “Stat Ninja.” Again, do you call yourself that because you fight stats? Your analysis is straight out of 1992. We’ve come a long way, baby.
Seriously, as a #1 overall pick and Boras bonus baby, the Royals need to get more out of this investment than a kinda sorta maybe OK #4 starter with no great track record of success at AA and above who is likely to regress further below the mean at any given time.
Ok, seriously. First, evaluating him based on when he was drafted and that he was a “Boras bonus baby” is silly, meaningless and irrelevant. Second, what he is now is an above average #4 SP. Third, this is just the first half of his rookie season. Fourth, it is only you who thinks he’s “likely to regress” and you have no support for that. Fifth, his peripherals were actually pretty good in the minors and he was forced to pitch without his slider so he could work on his curveball throughout 2007, which affected his stats.
Hoch isn’t young-young (he and Hiram are slightly older than Greinke)
Hochevar is 24. That’s not “young-young”? He “could improve”? Please. This got nonsensical fast and got worse from there.
Would you please read up on the statistical analysis in baseball which has been done in the past 15 years? I think it would improve your analysis. I would suggest:
www.baseballprospectus.com
www.hardballtimes.com
“Baseball Between the Numbers”
“The Book: Playing the Percentage in Baseball”
Arguing statistical analysis when you are still relying on batting average and WHIP is getting increasingly tiresome and pointless.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 25, 2008 2:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So no one intelligent expects anything good from Hochevar this season? No scouts, no analysts?
Responsible scouts speak to players’ potential and how they go about playing the game rather than when they will achieve any particular benchmark. I’ve seen no analyst project a rookie season as good as Greinke’s or better. Throw down a link to a respected analyst who published such a projection if you know of one.
Part of the problem is that there is so little to analyze with Hochevar. I had heard that he wasn’t allowed to throw all of his pitches in the minors, and that doesn’t brighten up the picture much. Perhaps he improved certain pitches in the minors that way, but it didn’t translate to great performance. Perhaps he’s less injury prone from not throwing certain pitches…I hate to speculate since I don’t know the Royals’ reasoning for developing him that way. The very best player available in 2006 shouldn’t have required such an odd and unorthodox approach unless it was about injury concerns, which would also lower expectations a bit further.
Aside from my frustrations about Hochevar’s high draft price and less than proportionate performance and outlook, we’re both waiting and seeing what happens with him. His batting average allowed is more encouraging than some of his other peripherals.
As for Davies being a league-average #5, I’m not going to be thrilled by that. Were the league averages for #4 and #5 starters calculated in a meaningful manner (excluding guys like Bale and Tomko or Elarton last year with less than 10 or 15 starts in a year), the standards would be higher and meaningful. Joba Chamberlain is the Yankees’ fifth starter by that logic. Davies has a three-something ERA in six starts which we both expect to blow up while Chamberlain has a 1.80 ERA in five starts with better peripherals (although a 1.40 WHIP isn’t very good, he may very well be able to finish with a 4.50 ERA at worst while Davies could balloon to a 6.00+ ERA and not surprise me). A #4 starter is often used in postseason play, so I do prefer and expect something close to league average from the Royals’ fourth starter whenever they are actually good again. The Royals aren’t likely to have two #1s, or even two #2s, but GMDM should aim for two #2s and be happy with two #3s, which should be a good enough pitching staff to compete for the division title.
If all you know is ERA, WHIP, K’s and BB’s, then you need to read up on stats, Ninja…do you call yourself that because you fight stats? Your analysis is straight out of 1992.
I know of more than ERA, WHIP, K, and BB, of course. I prefer to use those which are publicly available at multiple sites and have been applied to all-time players for comparison, and I prefer to use several at a time. Were I getting paid to write this, I would at least look at a wider variety of stats, but I’m not.
A former boss had called me a stat ninja the day or week when I signed up for SBNation. I was reading several SBN blogs, and user names like RoyalsFan9284387 or KCViking wouldn’t translate well from one to the other. This moniker was available and seemed pretty neutral. I certainly hadn’t expected to alarm anyone.
I don’t fight stats. The best stats are simply factual raw data. Some stats are tools to weigh the importance or influence of raw data, and not all of them are equally appropriate or accurate for certain objectives. It’s important to know the limitations, underlying assumptions, and context of statistical data at all times. In my first profession, I threw out all objective tests and replaced them with authentic assessments because use of knowledge in the real world isn’t about choosing a, b, c, or d and also because presenting 75% misinformation (sometimes with trick questions) is an obviously counterproductive means toward learning objectives, especially when under the duress of test anxiety. The business world counterpart to authentic assessment is known as Six Sigma (Black Belt).
Tomko’s BABIP was high with the Dodgers last year (.338, high even for him). That would have suggested that he was the victim of poor defense and that a certain GM should give him another shot, so someone did. Tomko’s AVG allowed was .295, his WHIP was 1.60, Tomko’s K/BB ratio was less than 2.0. All of those suggested that he was excessively hittable, unable to keep batters off base, unable to strike out enough batters, and therefore excessively dependent upon the defense, which he was. None of those unsexy 1992 measures predicted that he would do better this year, but your preferred shiny and new ones did.
GB/FB has a chicken/egg subtext. I’ve seen evidence of flyball hitters and groundball pitchers and some evidence of sporadic examples of each. I think that Joey Gathright would be more of a groundball hitter than Adam Dunn; therefore, why credit the pitcher with a Gathright GO or penalize a pitcher with a Dunn AO? By GB/FB ratio alone, Jeff Fulchino (2.50) and John Bale (2.33) lead the Royals, rank highly in the league, and would appear to be performing well this year. Their WHIPs are 1.83 and 2.33, respectively, suggesting that they are absolutely awful, which they are.
In concert, AVG allowed, WHIP, and K/BB decisively point out that all three are awful pitchers. Bale has a decent K/BB ratio, but both have been extremely hittable as evidenced by their excessively high AVG allowed. By contrast, Bale’s BABIP was .349 this year and .327 as a reliever before 2008. Fulchino’s BABIP is over .400 this year. Those two stats suggest that these three pitchers were due for improvement from 2007 to 2008 and may still deserve more chances, but they don’t.
Relying on BABIP (if only the defense fielded more balls in play) or GB/FB or DIPS ERA (if only HR never happened) for a projection is like estimating a morning commute with no traffic and never hitting a red light. It’s a nice fantasy exercise, but relying on it may have negative impacts in the real world.
I’m surprised that you didn’t use opponents’ batting average (or AVG allowed, same thing) since BBTN identified opponents’ batting average as the greatest driver of postseason success (page 361). This started off as a discussion about what it would take to transform the Royals into a winner, after all, so why not take it to a meaningful level rather than 2003 redux?
I haven’t read all of BBTN because I found the first three chapters I read unimpressive at best (NHZ had recommended it to me a year or two ago). In the same chapter I’ve already cited, I couldn’t believe the list of metrics they had selected did not include OBP. Why not OBP? Chapter one of that book declares that it’s the most important stat ever, so why not prove it definitively in the last? Even if it were obvious, it would be helpful to see whether OBP correlated with PSP 2x or 4x as much as stolen base attempts (clever of them to use all attempts rather than SB alone) or 3x opponents’ batting average? My dog would have included OBP in her top 26 things that may correlate with and predict success in the MLB playoffs. Why not SLG% and/or OPS? Did the authors simply forget about these things? Were they ignorant and uninformed about OBP, SLG%, and OPS (and why weren’t you alarmed at that)? Did they make a faulty assumption that OBP, SLG%, or OPS didn’t matter at all? Or did they track those variables and exclude the data from the published version of the study? If some context of batting average (or just about anything) correlated with playoff success more than OBP, then I suppose they would want to keep quiet about it. BP wouldn’t be the first corporation to stop tracking unflattering data and revise a study before publication.
In the chapter about RBI, they define “RBI opportunities” as any situation with runners on base and make fun of Edgar Renteria for not driving in many runners on first. NOBODY drives in a significant percentage of runners from first base, which is why 2nd and/or 3rd are considered scoring position, and of course someone like Renteria frequently bats with a runner on first. That chapter began by trying to solve a perceived problem: that some hitters with fewer RBI (which could have included Renteria) were not necessarily worse than those with high RBI totals. The authors recreated and compounded the problem all over again since they defined “RBI opportunities” so poorly, again favoring the middle-of-the-lineup hitters, just as the old RBI totals had. But, as the chapter also acknowledged, at least the common baseball fan KNEW that a leadoff batter had fewer RBI opportunities and should not be held to that standard whereas anyone who reads that chapter now and doesn’t think about it enough will have the same lesson ingrained in them had they simply looked at RBI totals and assumed that more were always better.
My proposed replacement for AVG-HR-RBI and AVG/OBP/SLG would be OBP with bases empty/AVG with RISP/% of games played with 3+ TPA in which the batter reaches base safely at least once. Even when quoting AVG/OBP/SLG, it’s still common to add “with x HR” or SB or whatever seems relevant at the time.
It’s not that I’ve never read BP, it’s that I’ve been consistently unimpressed and disappointed with BP.
Arguing statistical analysis when you are still relying on batting average and WHIP is getting increasingly tiresome and pointless.
Ever since you declared Jack Cust a better hitter than Jim Thome, Sean Casey, Shannon Stewart (and who else?) based on Cust’s OPS at the time, it’s been clear to me that you wouldn’t appreciate sound analysis anyway. Cust is getting his first shot at an everyday gig as a MLB hitter at age 29, and that’s great, but to declare someone with less than a full season of MLB hitting under his belt (essentially a Ross Gload with power) a better hitter than Thome and the rest with their several seasons of being All-Stars, MVP candidates, and the like during their twenties is a pure act of clinical insanity.
by Stat Ninja on Jun 29, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ninja
You said: "nobody intelligent is going to celebrate their [Hochevar and Davies] success or even expect much to celebrate from either of them in 2008”. To which I incredulous replied with a question: “So no one intelligent expects anything good from Hochevar this season? No scouts, no analysts?” Then you very oddly replied:I’ve seen no analyst project a rookie season as good as Greinke’s or better. Throw down a link to a respected analyst who published such a projection if you know of one.
Did I say anything about anyone projecting Hochevar to have a rookie season as good as Greinke’s or better? Is having a rookie season as good or better than Greinke’s the only thing one could “celebrate”? Is an ERA+ of 120 the benchmark of a good rookie season? Anything worse than that is just blah, huh? Sounds really, very silly. If a rookie can manage to pitch like an average #3 SP in his rookie season, THAT is cause for celebration.
Part of the problem is that there is so little to analyze with Hochevar. I had heard that he wasn’t allowed to throw all of his pitches in the minors, and that doesn’t brighten up the picture much. Perhaps he improved certain pitches in the minors that way, but it didn’t translate to great performance. Perhaps he’s less injury prone from not throwing certain pitches…I hate to speculate since I don’t know the Royals’ reasoning for developing him that way. The very best player available in 2006 shouldn’t have required such an odd and unorthodox approach unless it was about injury concerns, which would also lower expectations a bit further.
The reason that organizations sometimes take a pitch away from a pitcher for a while in the minors is so they can improve another important pitch. It’s not like other organizations haven’t done this from time to time. As I said, the reason the Royals said they did it is so he could improve his curveball, by making that is one and only breaking pitch. No need to manufacture non-existent concerns here.
Joba Chamberlain is the Yankees’ fifth starter by that logic.
Joba Chamberlain isn’t a fifth starter by any logical, reasonable estimation. When one talks about a pitcher being of the quality of a #1, #2 or #3 starter, they are talking about quintiles. It is basically creating a statistical range for each of those starter spots by looking at the 150 SP’s with the most starts in the MLB in a year and then ranking them by some meaningful statistical measure(s) and then breaking that list into quintiles (groups of 20% each). The bottom quintile would be the starters of the quality of a fifth starter. The average performance among that group would be the after fifth starter.
I know of more than ERA, WHIP, K, and BB, of course. I prefer to use those which are publicly available at multiple sites and have been applied to all-time players for comparison, and I prefer to use several at a time. Were I getting paid to write this, I would at least look at a wider variety of stats, but I’m not.
Then you shouldn’t waste your time telling me how important WHIP is and how you don’t like a particular pitcher’s WHIP. Given all we know about the degree to which a pitcher can affect the outcome of balls put in play, WHIP is an exceptionally crappy stat.
I certainly hadn’t expected to alarm anyone.
Your screen name certainly didn’t alarm me. I just found it very ironic.
GB/FB has a chicken/egg subtext. I’ve seen evidence of flyball hitters and groundball pitchers and some evidence of sporadic examples of each. I think that Joey Gathright would be more of a groundball hitter than Adam Dunn; therefore, why credit the pitcher with a Gathright GO or penalize a pitcher with a Dunn AO? By GB/FB ratio alone, Jeff Fulchino (2.50) and John Bale (2.33) lead the Royals, rank highly in the league, and would appear to be performing well this year. Their WHIPs are 1.83 and 2.33, respectively, suggesting that they are absolutely awful, which they are.
Basically it appears that you are saying, “we don’t really know if GB rates are significant, meaningful or if they can be consistent.” The research (again, if you’re talking in depth about stats, reading the research on them would be very helpful) shows that GB rates are extremely significant and meaningful and that for sinkerballers they are often very consistent. For evidence of this, check out the GB% of guys like Wang, Carmona, Westbrook, Webb, Low and Halladay.
Relying on BABIP (if only the defense fielded more balls in play) or GB/FB or DIPS ERA (if only HR never happened) for a projection is like estimating a morning commute with no traffic and never hitting a red light. It’s a nice fantasy exercise, but relying on it may have negative impacts in the real world.
When seriously analyzing any pitcher, you have to look at ERA, K/9, BB/9, BABIP, FIP (or PERA or DERA), LD%, GB% and FB%. This is doubly true when you’re talking about a sinkerballer like Hochevar or the pitchers I mentioned above.
I’m surprised that you didn’t use opponents’ batting average (or AVG allowed, same thing) since BBTN identified opponents’ batting average as the greatest driver of postseason success (page 361).
This is the problem with taking a piece of data in a graph out of context and, therefore, misinterpreting its meaning. I would suggest you read beyond the first three chapters of that book and actually re-think many of your fundamental assumptions. They are failing you.
It’s not that I’ve never read BP, it’s that I’ve been consistently unimpressed and disappointed with BP.
Is the problem you have particular to BP? Do you prefer the sabermetric analysis at hardballtimes.com or another source more compelling? Or is it that you just find sabermetrics unimpressive and disappointing? Because if you have rejected all or even most of the newer (read that as last 10-15 years) statistical research, then you are just blindly clinging to an old orthodoxy and are uninterested in having your old ideas challenged and improved upon.
Ever since you declared Jack Cust a better hitter than Jim Thome, Sean Casey, Shannon Stewart (and who else?) based on Cust’s OPS at the time, it’s been clear to me that you wouldn’t appreciate sound analysis anyway.
Sound analysis? First, I’m pretty sure I never said that Cust has been a better hitter over his MLB career than Thome. Second, I said Cust is a better hitter now than Stewart and Casey have been. They’ve had more playing time and racked up more in the way of counting stats, but Cust is clearly the better hitter. Cust is actually hitting well since he got to Oakland, whereas Stewart and Casey have been little better than league average hitters for their career. But hey, champion their mediocrity all you like.
Ninja, your analysis is sound for roughly 1990. Take out all we know about getting on base, hitting for power, “clutch hitting,” BABIP, K’s, BBs, LD%, and GB% and your analysis would be state of the art. Fortunately, we know much more now than we knew 15 years ago. It would help your analysis to learn some of it.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 30, 2008 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Ah,
cancel the discussion everyone. Stat Ninja is allowed to make his point and then shut down the argument under the guise of “staying on topic.” Either argue your point or don’t, but don’t tell other people not to argue back.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
I won't take them seriously until they start beating AL teams consistently.
I think a huge caveat to the recent win streak is that it comes against the NL. Give me a winning stretch of baseball against the AL, and I’ll start to believe we can sniff .500 this season.
Other things that need to happen to be taken seriously: Meche And Greinke continue to pitch like a 1-2 combination, we get the chaff out of the bullpen and bench (Ho-Ram, Gload, German to name a few), and Billy Butler comes back up.
I'm thinking this team might meet expectations
but won’t be taken seriously. 75 wins is within reach. 80, long shot. .500….c’mon
Never giving up on your team is what makes you a good fan.
by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Jun 24, 2008 12:31 AM EDT reply actions
Depends on what your expectations were
5 wins is within reach. 80, long shot. .500….c’mon
So 80 wins is a longshot, but 81 wins is laughable? Getting that 81st win must be really, really hard. Expecting a particularly tough pitching matchup in that game? By the way, I don’t think anyone in this thread has predicted a .500 finish.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions
echoing some statements above
it kinda depends by what you mean by seriously…
the sad/cool thing is, it might only take 85 wins to snag the AL Central… if the royals end up at 81 or so, i’m gonna be fairly bummed
I would be happy to be bummed like that
This team needs to take steps forward. Getting a win total in the high-70’s would be a nice step forward. Getting to .500 would be a big step forward. If that means we get close enough to contending so that we’re disappointed at the end of the season for not winning the division, so be it.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't think the 6th or 7th man in the bullpen is going hold the Royals back much
...and if he does, it won’t be for long.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Probably so
I don’t know if you’re really making this argument, but I’m not a big fan of this kind of reasoning: “I can’t take the Royals seriously as long as they do stupid things like calling up a crappy veteran to be the 6th or 7th man out of the bullpen.” It’s a minor move with minor negatives at worst. Should one not take the Indians seriously because they called up Elarton?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Cleveland's record is hugely disappointing
And the mere presence of Elarton in the clubhouse is a big reason why.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
But Their Effort
Is through the roof.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jun 24, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
It's What He
Does.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jun 24, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Will Ramirez be used in that role?
I think not. Moore has already demonstrated the overvaluing of one ex-Brave in Tony Pena. Hillman’s bullpen instincts are highly questionable, what with his use of Brett Tomko even just days before his inevitable release. Ramirez is the type of pitcher the Royals have overvalued over the years. Wellemeyer. Lopez. Tomko. All have pitched in crucial situations. None have deserved it. Considering Ramirez pitched today and yesterday with the game on the line, I’d be inclined to say he’s certainly no longman, or 6th/7th bullpen member. Not with the way he is currently being implemented.
by Royals Nation on Jun 24, 2008 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Ramirez
I think not. Moore has already demonstrated the overvaluing of one ex-Brave in Tony Pena
So you’re saying that because Moore traded for Pena, that means he overvalues H.Ramirez? That’s a real stretch. Also, Moore doesn’t set bullpen roles and determine reliever usage. Hillman does that.
Hillman’s bullpen instincts are highly questionable
That is certainly true. But there is no doubt that Hillman recognizes who the closer and primary setup men are: Soria, R.Ramirez and Mahay. There is absolutely no reason to believe H.Ramirez will break into the closer or setup roles. So, at most, he’s the #4 guy, and #5 once Nunez come back.
Ramirez is the type of pitcher the Royals have overvalued over the years. Wellemeyer. Lopez. Tomko.
What the Royals have done “for years” has little or no bearing on what the current regime is doing or will do. In that list, only Tomko is relevant to the current GM and manager.
Considering Ramirez pitched today and yesterday with the game on the line, I’d be inclined to say he’s certainly no longman, or 6th/7th bullpen member. Not with the way he is currently being implemented.
Now you’ve lost me. H.Ramirez didn’t pitch yesterday (Sunday). He wasn’t even on the team yesterday. Second, the game wasn’t “on the line.” He pitched in the 8th inning with a 4-run lead. That is a decidedly low leverage situation by any measure of leverage.
I’d be inclined to say he’s certainly no longman or 6th/7th bullpen member. Not with the way he is currently being implemented.
So the way he was used in one game tells you all you need to know? Would you actually waste one of the Royals 3 genuinely good relievers in the 8th inning of a 4-run game? That makes no sense whatsoever. None.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:37 AM EDT up reply actions
+1
I was getting very frustrated in the game thread with so many people freaking out about saving our bullpen.
by I need more Esteban on Jun 24, 2008 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
it'll be fascinating to see
what happens this off-season (and possibly this deadline) if the royals end up as a 75-80 win team
specifically, with regards to how dayton views the roster core and how close they are to contention… basically, if the team gets to that point, it’ll be his first real moment of truth moment as GM
All along, it appears like he's been building the team for contending fairly soon
But, regardless of how many games the Royals win this year, I think he’ll hit the FA market hard. I think he’ll try to get a top tier FA, bidding on guys like Teixeira, Dunn and/or Burrell. I know he values pitching very highly, but I’m confident that he sees that what this team really lacks some big bats.
Long story short, whether the Royals win 70 games or 85, I think his approach will be pretty much the same.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Signing our own core players
....should take priority over any Free Agent signing, in my opinion. Retaining these three guys – Butler, Gordon, Greinke – to long-term deals ensures more budget knowledge and preparation for the next 5-7 years, and sends an extremely important message to “Royals Nation” (so to write) that we are committed to keeping our own homegrown talents.
Don’t misunderstand me….I would love a Teixeira or Dunn….but realistically we can’t acquire those players unless we overpay drastically, and I mean drastically. Not unless Glass increases the budget by a significant margin, and that’s doubtable, IMO.
Nonetheless, Moore’s offensive-building has started to come around, bit by bit. Olivo was hitting well…Guillen is hitting well. His 2007-08 acquisitions alone haven’t performed badly. Other things offensive, however, don’t make sense. Butler demotion and lack of promotion when his Omaha production clearly warrants one….Gathright’s continued lineup presence…overimplementing Pena….overimplementing Gload….
by Royals Nation on Jun 24, 2008 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn't offer Butler or Gordon a big money deal yet
They haven’t yet proved they are worth it. I’d certainly work hard at locking up Greinke. What I want to see is a commitment to winning. And that takes more than locking up young, unproven talent. It requires going out and getting some difference makers.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions
i guess that's a mini-question on your bigger question, then.
when do we lock up butler and gordon? when are they good enough to risk money on (but not too good to be out of our reach)?
That's a good question
And I don’t have a good answer. It’s complicated. Because I’d be willing to lock up many of our players for the right price. But that’s the deal. It only makes sense for guys like Butler and Gordon if there are some significant paydays in there. Significant paydays = significant risk. And they are not yet worthy of significant risk. I’d certainly wait until the end of the season. If we see some nice improvement over the remainder of the season, then maybe we can start talking to Gordon’s agent about an extension. Right now I couldn’t tell you exactly how much improvement I’d need to see.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:49 AM EDT up reply actions
you could argue
That giving Gordon an extension now would be a decent idea, seeing that he’s proven that he’ll likely be AT LEAST an average third baseman for years to come. Wouldn’t have to give him the mega dollars either in the event he does breakout and become a superstud.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
That's a good point
The tough question is how much would you be willing for the Royals to pay him and for how long?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 3:19 AM EDT up reply actions
+1
Gordon and Butler certainly haven’t earned it yet, and maybe neither will. I hope they do earn it, though.
Might as well hand us the AL Central title now and save everyone the time
Whitesox can’t hit for average.. there pitching sucks… detroit. is just detroit.. they dont have any SP besides verlander and galaraga.. cleveland is just terrible.. no hitting.. hafner and martinez are just terrible this year.. twins are surprising everyone right now but they will come back down..
and i am joking about us winning the central.. but hey.. 8 games back.. anything is possible
Yasuhiko Yabuta is to Major League Baseball as Drew Carey is to The Price is Right
I hope the rest of the division shakes out like this in the years when this team is actually ready to contend
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:47 AM EDT up reply actions
My pessimistic comparison of the Royal lineup to the Yankees aside
I think this team WILL manage to get back to .500. I don’t know whether they’ll finish there, but I think the offense has gelled enough to forestall any further truly epic losing streaks (aided by the fact that Hillman no longer believes in TPJ), and management has shown the willingness to jettison poor bullpen performance.
Also, as much as I rag on Hillman, he seems to have started to learn some lessons. He’ll still throw a clunker of a lineup out there now and again, but I’m seeing fewer stupid tactical decisions, and I think he’s figured out when he can and cannot depend on Gobble. He needs to solve that issue with the remaining shaky relievers, but I’m slightly optimistic.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
I wish he'd figure out a better way to use the non-Soria/R.Ramirez/Mahay relievers
In the last month or so, he appears to have completely turned his back on the whole R/R, L/L matchup concept. I think he wants every pitcher to pitch and entire inning and he’ll stick with a reliever until he’s dug himself into a huge hole. I think when you’re dealing with mediocre or worse relievers (which is what the front end of the Royals bullpen is), then you have to make use of all of the platoon advantages you can. As much as possible, have Gobble and H.Ramirez face lefties, and Peralta and Yabuta face righties. That will help bridge the gap to the 7th or 8th inning.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions
i think you have to largely disregard the NL matchups...
...and go back to june 12, the last AL game. run through these series, backwards in time.
we lost the series against texas (who admittedly was just heating up at the time, and even so we might have won it had trey not blown the bullpen decisions in game 1).
we split with the yanks.
we got swept by the chisox.
we took the series from cleveland, to end our 12 game losing streak.
all in all, even after the losing streak, moderately poor baseball. a 5-8 record post-streak. i think things have gelled for us since then, since i don’t think even the NL’s legendary weakness can fully explain our bats and pitching. maybe instead of 5-8 against the AL teams coming up, we’ll be 6-7. i’d believe that.
i guess i just believe that past AL performance is a good predictor, and NL should be heavily scaled. so with recent enthusiasm factored in but slightly tamped down, i think we’re a legitimately near-500 team.
is that enough to get excited? i don’t know.
I don't think we can completely disregard these NL games
First, they are MLB teams. Second, mostly we’re not talking about the dregs of the NL. In Arizona and St. Louis we’re talking about teams with good records in first and second place in their division. The mere fact that they are in the NL doesn’t mean they are crappy teams. Actually, Arizona and St. Louis are pretty good teams.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:53 AM EDT up reply actions
they are..
a “Good team” when they have pujols.. and he’s supposed to come back the day before our last series!
He's got the dates with the Royals circled!
His whole rehab, nay, season, comes down to that one series
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
So uh, last year.....
On June 24, 2007, Colorado was 1 game over .500 and 5.5 games out of 1st.
They finished 17 games over .500.
In the previous 6 seasons, they had 0 winning seasons.
Why not KC this year?
I know that the NL was a train wreck last year, but so is the AL Central in ‘08. The warts of the AL Central have been pointed out earlier.
I’m not predicting a WS appearance or anything, but ya never know how the last 3 months of the season are going to shape up…................
Which is harder
To go from .450 to .500 or to go from .500 to .550?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
i've worked as a coach at a high school
my a.d. has a saying:
it’s really easy to take some crap and turn them into a mediocre team, even a decent team, but taking a decent team and making them good is the more difficult step.
this is also in regard to tennis and soccer at a school where none (maybe 3 students in 2 years) of the students have played those sports before high school.
For the record
I’ve always taken this club seriously.
But we don’t have much of a shot at .500 IMO. Playing .550 ball is just too much to ask. 75 wins tops. We’ll have another six game losing streak at some point this year.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
41-44
Would get us 75 wins. I’d be pretty happy if we went 41-44 from here on out.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 24, 2008 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
I want to see them against AL competition again
Before I make a final judgment. After all, this team was looking pretty good in the series against the Marlins before they went back to facing AL teams and promptly lost 12 games in a row. We forget that this team was at its worst before two things occurred:
(1) Interleague play
(2) Mike Aviles was instilled as the everyday shortstop
Perhaps number 2 overrules number 1, but I remain skeptical about a Royal resurgence towards .500
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
I'm going build on...
...RoyalsRetro’s comment above. If you really believe in the work of Dayton Moore and Trey Hillman, you should’ve never lost confidence. Moore proved himself last year. Unquestionably. Hillman has proven himself in Japan, and Japan has proven itself in international competition and in the overall quality of players that have been raised there and performed here over the past 15 years.
In sum, on when to take the Royals seriously? My answer is last year. All of us should’ve come into the season confident.
I can understand feeling downtrodden over the May losses. It is perfectly understandable. But there were “winnable losses” in that streak: we weren’t dominated.
We should be taking the Royals seriously all the time. They’re a team full of competent competitors. They’ll end the year right around .500. If they don’t, it’ll be circumstantial and not because of the build of the team and direction of the franchise as of the last two years (1. pitching; 2. defense; 3. offense). – TL
NYR you like to bash people for being negative
can you temper your positivity a bit. This team has played well against the NL this year 10-3 in Interleague play 24-40 vs the AL. Aviles is a definite upgrade and I want to see if this team continues its hot play against the AL.
Look at the July schedule. It is filled with KC killers and more talented teams than KC
Baltimore 3
Chicago White Sox 6
Tampa Bay Rays 8
Oakland A’s 3
Favorable series with Seattle and Detroit.
That is a brutal 26 game July schedule. If they can get to within 6-7 games under .500 before July and then play .500 or +.500 ball in July then and only then will I believe they can climb above ..500 this year.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
Temper my positivity?
I asked a question. I didn’t say ”.500, here we come!” I didn’t say that we should be taking this team seriously. I just asked a question. Is asking the question being too positive?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
duhhhhhh
;)
"I never really said most of the things I said." - Yogi Berra
by loyal2theroyals on Jun 24, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
temper your tempered tempering!
What?
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Apparently I need to temper my interrogatories
Apparently sometimes even questions can be too positive.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I sure didn't see this question after
a 3-3 homestand or a losing stretch.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
Because they really didn't look like we should start considering when/if they should be taken seriously then
But they are showing signs of life over the last 11 games. At this point, I would say they are likely on the road to a near .500 record. But if they keep winning, they could prove themselves to be on that road. So my question is, how much winning would they have to do for us to seriously consider that they might not be awful and that they might be a team that could seriously chase .500? There isn’t a lot of rampant positivity in that question.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
you're not making sense
When we were losing, there were A LOT of posts about the team being bad and everyone being very negative. Then why, during a winning time, would there not be posts about the team playing well/being better/discussing how good the team could really be?
by I need more Esteban on Jun 24, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn't call that brutal
Baltimore isn’t that good, the White Sox are due to come back to earth a bit, Detroit isn’t very good, Seattle sucks beyond all belief, and the A’s and Rays are good.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Baltimore owns us though
So does Tampa Bay for some reason.
Of course, we own the Tigers.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
But seriously,
we really can’t assume Baltimore’s going to sweep us, though. They’re just not very good. They’re lucky to be two games over right now.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
I have to agree
Although we’ve struggled against Baltimore, I think it is totally random, they are not that good and we can definitely take the series from them….I just can’t wait for the White Sox to come down either, I don’t understand how they are good, Oh and also, don’t look now but the Tigers have been playing better lately, I fully expect them to be in the thick of things at the end of the season.
by I need more Esteban on Jun 24, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
The Tigers have been playing well
but concerns over their pitching are still relevant.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Hopefully that changes next week
I plan to be at Camden Yards for the last three games of the series.
White Sox
Are 31-34, but their pythag is 45-30… not that it’s everything… While Floyd and Danks have been over their heads, I also think Swisher will come around, Thome, too, and can’t believe Konerko is completely done.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Cleveland is also 5 under their run differential
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Um...
You’re doing something funky there with the WS record, there. I still think that Cleveland and Detroit will play well enough that the Sox won’t have much choice but to regress a bit.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
OK
I admit I wasn’t thinking about how to use the records in conjuction. I probably misunderstood you as saying that the White Sox were playing “over their heads” rather than “regressing” due to the improvement of other teams.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah,
I get what you’re saying, which is that there’s no space between their pyth record and real record (though their real record is not 31-34, your figure). I just think that with the other teams improving and some of their hot starters such as Quentin fall off a bit then we’ll see the White Sox get challenged.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Oops, I meant 41-34
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought that seemed a little off
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
The Al Central's weak, but not THAT weak
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
typos = awesome communication and counter-analysis
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Not Brutal to most but to KC it is
The White Sox have swept us already once this year and since ‘02 KC is 41-74 against them.
Baltimore won 3 out of 4 and KC is 1-10 over the last 2 years against them, 11-35 thru ‘02.
Oakland also swept KC this year and KC is 11-38 thru ‘02. Although KC beat them in the season series last year 6-4. Thats a combined 63-147, not good. While some of the players aren’t on this team the records from 07-08 aren’t much better (13-32 since last year and 1-9 this year).
As for Tampa Bay, Seattle and Detroit. Tampa has more talent than KC. This might be the year KC can beat Seattle in the season series hopefully and KC has owned Detroit so far this year but Detroit has played much better recently.
I don’t want to be negative but if KC can get thru that part of the schedule close to .500 or above then I will become a believer in this team to get to .500. This season is looking remarkably close to last years with the difference being a slightly better April and slightly worse May. Improvement thru June (Thank You Interleague) hopefully this team doesn’t fall apart come September like last years team.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
Wow,
you mean we’ve been bad against other baseball teams the last couple years? I hadn’t noticed. :p
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
No I mean We've been bad against the AL
and not just bad against the Orioles, AWFUL.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
I noticed that, too,
and I still don’t think the stretch will be that bad. Call me an optimist.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
Last time they were on the cusp of .500, they lost 12 in a row.
I think they’re allergic.
We don’t want hives, now do we?
Kansas City Royals: the 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions.
BABY!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 24, 2008 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
think of poor DeJesus, guys!
"I never really said most of the things I said." - Yogi Berra
by loyal2theroyals on Jun 24, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmm...
Again I guess it depends on what seriously means? They’re better than they used to be. I think we should let the record reflect how good they are. When they achieve a 500 record then we can start dreaming about better things. Until then they’re on a nice little streak that may or may not continue when they go back to playing in the big boy league.
I know you can't do this....
But I’m going to do it anyway…
April 17 – April 24th —- Royals Record 0-7
May 5th – Mat 10th —- Royals Record 1-5
May 19 – June 5th —- Royals Record 2 – 15
During those 3 stretches of games, the Fighting Hillmans were 3 – 27, a whopping TWENTY FOUR games under .500.
Which means the portions of the schedule that they haven’t played horrible, they’ve played FIFTEEN GAMES OVER .500.
It is reasonable to expect that if they can avoid another terrible stretch of games they can push their record to and over .500 IMO
Is it reasonable to expec they'll avoid a terrible stretch of games?
Almost every team will have a terrible stretch of games over the next 80 games.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
The question is will they have more good stretches than bad, and by how much.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe you'll find an answer to this question after compiling the latest RCI?
HINT HINT NUDGE NUDGE
Kansas City Royals: the 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions.
I'll get around to that any day now
But it won’t answer my question. :(
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I only thought about it because this question reminded me of the final win total question. Seeing where people think this team will end up will tell us if anyone actually feels that they will be able to take the team seriously at some point this year.
Kansas City Royals: the 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions.
From the answers
...clearly some people think we should take this team seriously and that they’ll get to around .500. But most do not. As always, there’s a wide variety of opinions on the subject.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
If we're talking short-term;
i.e., this season, I will take them seriously when Moore at least attempts to duplicate the Aviles success by finding replacements for Gload and Gathright in the lineup. Butler is the obvious answer for one of the remaining lineup holes, but I think it would take a trade to address the other, unless they want to go back to playing both catchers full time.
Hillman shows a tendency to go back to defense first, despite most of the recent success being due to an improved offense. Take last night, for instance – Grud is out, so rather than playing Aviles and Callaspo, he returns to the hitless wonder, Pena.
Gload and Gathright represent similar (though not nearly as bad as Pena) drains on the offense, and although I’m fine with both serving as bench players, there is no way in the world they should be getting as many starts as they are this year.
Pena instead of Callaspo
For better or worse, I think it was because of the lefty starter.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
I personally won’t take the team seriously until Butler is back up. At least.
Kansas City Royals: the 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions.
Is it also time
To end the 12 man pitching staff and add an extra bat? I think I’d rather see Shane Costa in LF than Esteban German misplaying fly balls.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
+1 on the stupidity of 12 man pitching staffs
(preparing to be covered in refuse thrown out windows)
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Is any team currently going with an 11-man pitching staff?
The universality of the 12-man pitching staff doesn’t make it right. But calling for that bit of stupidity to end is like calling for a closer to be used in the highest leverage situations instead of almost only in the 9th inning with a 3-run or fewer lead. It’s a great idea and it should be done, but no team is going to do it.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Hillman obviously values defense too much over hitting
Thats why Pena played for a month too long and why they won’t play Callaspo and Aviles together. Alberto is hitting .400 against lefties. Pena needs to be a defensive replacement only.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
I guess I'm confused
As stupid as this sounds, despite the attempts to clarify what we’re talking about, I suppose that (perhaps a bit like timlacy above) I really don’t know what the question means. I guess I’m not sure what it means to not take the Royals seriously. I mean, this isn’t 2006 or 2005. I don’t see them as the Giants or Pirates—yeah, they’ll win a few games, but contention seems a LONG way off for those teams. I didn’t really expect the Royals to contend this year, even when they got out to a good start. Not because I’m pessimistic, but because they weren’t hitting and the pitching was just so dominant it was unsustainable (not that the staff isn’t good, it’s just that very few staffs stay _that) good). Maybe I retreated a bit too much into “joke” posts in threads during the losing streak, but I dunno.
While I admit that I lack the ability and will to do the caculations, it seems highly improbable (if not impossible) that the Royals could get hot enough to finish .500, but I think most people acknowledge that. They could get back in the neighborhood, but luck can swing either ways in a series of one-run games. Perhaps the best thing to do in non-contending years like this is to track the run differential in different periods of the season to track real progress a team.
For the long term (here meaning after this season), and this is probably obvious, the Royals will only be a contender if people see Butler and (especially) Gordon as breaking out to be not just league average, but above average for their positions. Only if this happens while they are relatively cheap will FA signings be practical measures to push the Royals over into contention.
With all due respect to Butler, I still see Gordon as more important because of his position. And that’s why I’m hoping RR/NHZ/NYRoyal can find time to do a “state of Alex” roundtable sometime soon. I’ll admit to fantasy’s involvement here, but I really do think he’s the one player (not the only player, but the most important one, given that Greinke has already broken out, Gordon’s position, and the ambiguity) right now on whom the Royals future rests.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 1:45 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The question is inherently vague
I guess what I meant was how much winning would they have to do to make you think that they have a legitimate shot of getting near .500 this season. From what I’ve seen so far, they don’t look like they’ll do it. But, if they keep winning, things could change. For instance, if they are 2 games under .500 at the ASB, then obviously they would have a decent chance to finish at or near .500. What if they are 4 games under .500 at the ASB? What if they are 6 games under?
Those are just some possible benchmarks. One could say that they won’t take the possibility of them getting near .500 seriously until they hit .500 again this season, or some other metric. My vague question was designed to get people talking about how they feel about this team, how meaningful they think this good stretch is and perhaps what would have to happen for them to change their opinion of the team.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Keep track of the run differential might help
We should have a tracker that tracks that not only as the year goes on, but month-by-month or something.
I do think these wins are meaningul, although it’s hard to tell about the team as a whole because Guillen is so unbelievably (and unsustainably) hot right now. I mean, I don’t think he’ll go into anothe April-like swoon, but he’ll rise and fall as the year goes on given the kind of hitter he is. We’ll have a better idea of how the team is doing when Jose isn’t channeling his inner Vlad.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Great fanpost, NY....
I was actually thinking about this last night…
Answer: If the Royals can come away with a winning record between the TB and CHI SOX serieses (i.e. 4-3 throught the 7 game period), I’ll take them seriously because it shows they can do it against the top competition and that this hot streak isn’t an anomily (sp?)
I like that metric
Of course how they do against some other games between now and the ASB are important, but those two series are a good test. TB is genuinely good and the Chisox are at least pretty good. We may well prove something in those series (good or bad).
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Yup
Not to beat it into the ground, but I think keeping track of the run differential there would be good, too.
Because there is a big difference in terms of how the team is between going 3-4 and losing the 4 games by a combined 5 runs and goin 4-3 and getting outscored by 6 runs, at least in terms of measuring the teams “seriousness,” or something even if I would, of course, take wins!
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, maybe not a "big" difference, but a difference
I guess I mean somethig liek going 3-4 and losing 4 squeakers and winning substantially in the other 3, and going 4-3 and getting 4 1 run wins while getting blown out 3 times. You know what I mean
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Let's look realistically
At what we can expect in the second half.
Olivo is hitting over his head, and is more likely to regress than not. He already appears to be slumping.
Buck is pretty much in line with his career, except for an absence of power. I think we can expect him to hit with more power in the second half.
Gload – hard to tell. Will he rebound to career number, or does such a poor first half suggest he has reached a performance cliff? In either case, I don’t think DM will wait to find out. Ross’s days should be numbered, or at the very least, he’ll find himself permanently attached to the bench, with BillyBall at first.
Billy Butler – I think most of us expect a much improved Billy returning from Omaha. How great? I’d expect a .280/.340/.450 line or so. That would be a huge boost to the offense.
Mark Grudzielanek – if anything, he’s playing slightly over his head. That volatile BA will probably decline somewhat. He’s also at an age where he could stop being useful at any point, particularly if that back keeps troubling him.
Mike Aviles – I don’t see him keeping up these numbers, although he should be able to cure cancer in the second half. Even if he drops off quite a bit, having him offensively instead of TPJ will be a big improvement.
Alberto Callaspo – doesn’t seem to matter much, he’s in such a limited role. He’s so young, its hard to project, but I’d expect similar numbers in the second half.
Esteban German – limited role, but he should improve to career numbers
TPJ – he will continue to put up MVP-type numbers
Alex Gordon – another young guy that is hard to project. I think we should be able to expect more power from him though.
Jose Guillen – well he obviously won’t stay as hot as he’s been. Overall, his numbers are fairly consistent with the numbers he’s put up the last few seasons. I’d actually expect his OBA to improve quite a bit, to catch up with career numbers, and also as pitchers pitch around him more.
David DeJesus – playing over his head. Could regress, but its also possible he is having a career season. This power is rather unprecedented from him.
Mark Teahen – his numbers look pretty consistent for his career. His average is a bit low, so if he can get that up, his other numbers should go up as well. The home run power seems to be up, but he’s not really driving and pulling the ball for power. Hard to say what he’ll do.
Joey Gathright – bunts, bunts, bunts, and more bunts
So offensively, will we get better? I think so, but not by a whole lot. It will depend I think largely on (a) does Gordon find some power? (b) will Billy’s stay in Omaha make him a better hitter; (c) what does Aviles produce? (d) are Teahen’s and DJ’s home run numbers for real? We are currently 12th in runs scored, on pace for a pathetic 652 runs. If Butler and Gordon hit for power, and Aviles doesn’t totally turn into a ball of suck, I think we can improve that to 700-720, which would be pretty decent.
As for pitching:
Zack Greinke – I think we are seeing the real Greinke. Look for similar stats the second half
Gil Meche – seems to be getting stronger and stronger. Look for an improvement
Brian Bannister – I think we’re seeing the real Brian Bannister. I think he’s a 4.60 ERA kinda guy. Which is fine for a #3 starter. He’s just tough to project with those low K numbers.
Luke Hochevar – I think we can expect some mild improvement from him, and certainly having him pitch instead of Tomko in the rotation will be an improvement
Kyle Davies – almost surely will regress. By how much? Tough to say.
Soria/RamRam/Mahay/Nunez – they’ve pitched so well, we can’t expect them to actually get better. Will they get worse? Possibly, but not by much.
Yabuta – I actually think he’ll improve greatly in the second half as he adjusts to culture shock and figures out the league.
Gobble – he’s actually done well against lefties.
In all, I think our starting pitching will improve slightly as well, with our bullpen staying the same or regressing slightly.
I think we can pretty much play .500 ball the rest of the way. That would get us to about 76-77 wins, which is what I thought we were at the outset of the season.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 24, 2008 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Also remember
Injuries could play a role. We’ve been remarkably lucky thus far and have avoided major injury to most of the team.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Good stuff here
Those are reasonable expectations. I would disagree a bit here or there, but overall I think you are right on. Hopefully a few things end up going a bit more positive than our reasonable expectations and then win a few more games than that 76/77.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I just hope no one gets stupid
and makes Yabuta shave his sideburns. Best this side of Dustin McGowan.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 24, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Or, God forbid
Makes Soria shave his beard from whence his power comes.
She Said "Crown
Their asses”!
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jun 24, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
re: DDJ
I remember BP did a study on power spikes, and said something to the effect if a players SLG improved by about 30% from one year to the next, it’s more likely than not that the power surge was for real.
That may be the case with David, who’s going to clear 10 homeruns for the first time ever. The bad news is he’s hitting 30% over what was a terrible 2007, which was well below his average. Actually, maybe that’s not particularly bad news.
This space intentionally left blank.
30%
I would tend to think that a spike over an uncharacteristically bad year wouldn’t necessarily mean much. A .483 SLG would be 30%. Now if he had a 20% improvement over his 2005/2006 SLG of .445, that would be very impressive and hopefully meaningful. That would be a .534 SLG, which I don’t think is going to happen.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Nah,
it has to be considered good considering it puts him above average for a CF if he can maintain this level. when I was so sure he was going to be traded was when he had just come back, was showing no power, and was coming off his below average 2007.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
No idea if it is true or not
but on a radio show, someone said that DM gets calls daily inquiring about Dejesus. I wish so much we could know what kind of offers he has gotten (if any, as we don’t know if that is a true rumor or not). Anyone heard anything like this?
by I need more Esteban on Jun 24, 2008 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
There's lots of buzz, but so far it has all been baseball writers speculating that certain teams should be interested
I haven’t heard any rumors about genuine offers.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Consistently decent player with good OBA skills at a premium defensive position
Signed at a very reasonable contract, no surprise he’s attracting lots of attention.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
13 man staff
That’s what I believe STL went to for their 9 game foray playing on the road in AL parks with the DH.
LaRussa said he’d rather have the 8th relief pitcher available than a 4th position player off the bench, because the DH means he wouldn’t be making many moves at all.
I think we would all be a bit more OK with a 12 or even 13 man staff for the Royals IF AND ONLY IF they fielded a 9 man lineup with no obvious holes in it requiring pinch hitters…
Agreed
When one of the bench spots is manned by a guy who is only fit to be a defensive replacement, a 4-man bench is very, very light. We can’t afford to go to a 3-man bench which includes Pena.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
FWIW
I’m still in the “Do not trade DDJ” camp – always have been, and most likely always will be. Above average player signed at significantly below market thru 2011? Doubtful if any team will offer value that matches that for KC’s situation.
+1
I never really wanted him gone, it’s just that I was pretty sure he was declining after last year.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
I thought he'd get back to about his 2005/2006 level
Yay me! But I’d still be willing to trade him. Who knows if we could get sufficient MLB-ready talent for him. But I’d certainly listen to offers and hope that Ned Colletti wants another CFer and is upset with Matt Kemp.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 24, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: seriously
After my meltdown from a few weeks back, I realized that this season is really about figuring out what we’ve got and what direction the team needs to take for 2009/10/11. Just as I decided I wasn’t going to get worked up about individual games and look at the big picture, I think this recent hot stretch is just that – a stretch. The team simply does not have enough talent, IMHO, to compete consistently game in/game out. With Gload at 1B, Teahen in RF and Davies as a #5 starter, there are too many missing pieces.
However, I think this team/organization MAY have turned a corner during the Yankees series. This team was staring at oblivion and split the series with them. Past Royals teams would have been beaten before the plane even touched down at LaGuardia.
I actually think that the first thing that DM has had to do is rid the organization of the “culture of losing” that has permeated for so long. It seems to me that we are on our way to maybe doing that, and I am really hopeful that we have turned a corner. But, we simply don’t have the talent yet. I thought that before the season that 75 wins was a reasonable prediction, and I think that still holds true.
One man with courage makes a majority - Andrew Jackson
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Jun 25, 2008 12:01 PM EDT reply actions
Don't worry, you'll give up on them again with their next losing streak
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 25, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Aw, I say we give him a break
as long as he makes a fan post which consists of nothing but the word “winners” 300 times.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
I'm on the bandwagon, I'm off the bandwagon, I'm on the bandwagon, I'm off the bandwagon
That’s a real fan for ya’!
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 25, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, it never gets old
Perhaps some people can accept losing 100 games year after year, but at some point one can tend to get a little upset about it. I suppose no one else has gotten frustrated at seeing the organization they grew up with become a shell of it’s former self. So, when you see the same things happening year after year (was I the only one that saw flashbacks to the “Chip Ambres” game when they lost to the Twins?) you start to wonder if it’s ever going to get any better.
And as far as being a bandwagon fan, you’re entitled to your opinion, but for me, personally, Kansas City is my city, it is part of who I am. So, every time I see some schlub come out and half-ass a play, crap down their leg when they’ve got a chance to make our team, OUR CITY, winners again, yes it makes me very mad.
Do you remember back when we were good? Being the “Game of the Week” every week, several of our players leading the All-Star balloting? I sure do, I think about it all the time. This winning streak we are on is an awesome feeling. Who doesn’t want that? But, until tonight’s game, where were we in the standings? Still last place. I’m not satisfied, and neither should you be.
I’m not satisfied that Teahen putters along at .260 with occasional power. I’m not satisfied that Alex Gordon hasn’t lived up to his immense potential (yet). It’s important to me, as I’m sure it is for you. I want Gordon to be an All-Star in the worst way. What makes me mad, is that sometimes, it doesn’t seem like they want it as bad as I do. So to be critical, or frustrated, or fed up, doesn’t make anyone less of a fan.
In the end, NY Royal, we’re all rowing in the same direction. You have more patience than I, and for that I applaud you. But, to decide that you are the arbiter of who is a “real fan” and who isn’t is really kind of silly and presumptuous.
I certainly apologize for offending anyone previously, but I won’t apologize for wanting, demanding the best out of the team.
One man with courage makes a majority - Andrew Jackson
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Jun 25, 2008 11:07 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
We all get upset when the Royals are losing
But you are the one who created a fanpost to resign your Royals fandom and then wrote LOSER a few dozen times. You gave up on this team and gave up being a Royals fan.
And as far as being a bandwagon fan, you’re entitled to your opinion
When you resign your fandom when the team is losing a bunch of games and then get back behind the team when the Royals are winning a bunch of games, isn’t that the very definition of “bandwagon fan”?
Do you remember back when we were good? Being the "Game of the Week" every week, several of our players leading the All-Star balloting? I sure do, I think about it all the time. This winning streak we are on is an awesome feeling. Who doesn’t want that? But, until tonight’s game, where were we in the standings? Still last place. I’m not satisfied, and neither should you be
One can be dissatisfied with his team losing without resigning his fandom and giving up on his team.
What makes me mad, is that sometimes, it doesn’t seem like they want it as bad as I do
Don’t blame them, blame yourself because that is in your head. Unless you spend time in the clubhouse or know a bunch of Royals players and spend a lot of time with them you have no idea how much they want it. This isn’t football where you’re going to see a bunch of hooting and hollering. Baseball players are almost always quiet and even. What in the world makes you think you know how much they want it?
So to be critical, or frustrated, or fed up, doesn’t make anyone less of a fan.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s fine to be critical and frustrated. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. I don’t have a problem with you being critical of the Royals or frustrated with them. But you gave up on them. You quit the Royals Fan Nation. You resigned your fandom. You didn’t say “I’m pissed off because the Royals suck!” You quit and said you’re not a Royals fan anymore. See the distinction? It’s an important one.
In the end, NY Royal, we’re all rowing in the same direction.
Sometimes you are and sometimes you aren’t. Apparently when the team is losing, stop rowing and get out of the boat. And I’m not talking about just not following the Royals so closely during a bad spell; that would be understandable. You give up completely and stop being a fan of the team. And then when the Royals start winning again, you jump back in the boat and pick up an oar. Should I be happy now that you’re back on board? Because, like all teams, the Royals are going to have some losing streaks in front of them. What should I expect you to do the next time things turn south?
But, to decide that you are the arbiter of who is a "real fan" and who isn’t is really kind of silly and presumptuous.
There is only one person on this site who I have ever stated or implied was not a real fan, and that’s you. Why? Because you said you had given up being a Royals fan. If you’re a lawyer and then quit practicing law, should I call you a lawyer even though you’ve stopped being one?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 25, 2008 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
When you resign your fandom when the team is losing a bunch of games and then get back behind the team when the Royals are winning a bunch of games, isn’t that the very definition of "bandwagon fan"?
When I “left”, the Royals were 21-32. When I started posting again, they were 24-38. Not exactly jumping back on at high tide. Using my rudimentary mathematics skills, they were three games worse when I came back on.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s fine to be critical and frustrated. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. I don’t have a problem with you being critical of the Royals or frustrated with them. But you gave up on them. You quit the Royals Fan Nation. You resigned your fandom. You didn’t say "I’m pissed off because the Royals suck!" You quit and said you’re not a Royals fan anymore. See the distinction? It’s an important one.
I agree, I probably overreacted; however I have previously covered this and admitted as much. Not sure what the point is now. I’m not one to get into pissing contests and have lengthy back and forths. I’m moving on, I guess if you’re not we’ll just have to respectfully agree to disagree…
One man with courage makes a majority - Andrew Jackson
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Jun 26, 2008 9:48 AM EDT reply actions
It's good to have you back for another few weeks
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 26, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Touche...
One man with courage makes a majority - Andrew Jackson
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Jun 26, 2008 6:25 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
- The Ron Washington puppet is watching you while you sleep — and has possibly jinxed the Rangers
