Recent mood seems to have shifted. Even men, smart men, who once had grander predictions have even come on record to state that they felt the 2009 team would be worse than the 2008 version.
I vote for a recount, a January 2009, RCI. And this is in no way related to anything going on in DC.
10 months ago
tcon125
23 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
January RCI will be coming
And I think that the vast majority think that the 2009 teams in KC and DC will both be better than the 2008 teams.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2009 2:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
don't put words in our mouths.
:)
Kc has a better chance than DC though. Gov or Nats.
At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....
by tcon125 on Jan 21, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I won't get too deep into it, but...
I actually think the Gov team has a much better chance than the Royals. I mean the Gov team is taking over for one of the worst in history, so it would hard for them to be anything but much better.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 21, 2009 1:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
...not a bad "setting the bar" analogy for the current KC admin, either, come to think of it
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 21, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm predicting an 8 win improvement
Of course, the pythag. climb would be significant, but I think 83 wins is reasonable, given our young players with upside surrounded by depth. Our risk for collapse isn’t particularly high, either, given that depth. A poster at Scout.com states the Baseball Musings system projects over 800 wins with our new lineup + 2008 numbers (the statistics for Aviles and Guillen were adjusted slightly, in both directions). This number compares to 780 or so runs surrendered by our pitchers.
Count me as one of the most ruthlessly optimistic RR posters, at least this offseason.
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 4:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
800 runs
Yeah, if you use last year’s numbers, you get just about 800 runs. But there’s a big problem with that. That would require that those nine players play 162 games each. Last year, players outside of the top nine accounted for 26% of the team’s AB’s. So projecting runs from merely the starting nine just doesn’t give you an accurate representation of how many runs the team should score. Factor those players in and you definitely come in well under 780 runs. That would give you a record somewhere under .500.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2009 4:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On the contrary, I believe my projected lineup scored somewhere around 770 runs. I’ll have to recalculate my totals. (No, I’m not attempting to pass myself off as another CHONE, but then you mentioned the RR community projection……)
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 5:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Now we're talking about different things
You mentioned the guy at Scout.com who ran the lineup through Baseball Musing’s lineup optimizer using essentially 2008 numbers. Now, I guess you’re talking about your own personal projections, which looked pretty optimistic. And your projections add up to 770 RS and 780 RA? So that’s 80 wins, or only a 5-win improvement, not the 6-8 you mention elsewhere.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2009 5:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's what been the most interesting thing about this offseason
Despite calls of “too much negativity”, most RR’ers still had/have the Royals pegged for somewhere between 77-83 wins. Excluding outliers, most “optimistic” and “pessimistic” fans are predicting a similar win total. From the amount of hand-wringing over the issue, I would’ve expected one side to be expecting 85+ with the other side predicting 68-70, but that hasn’t been the case.
Suppose the Royals do go on to win 81-83 games. The same arguments will still take place — one side claiming that the rise in wins was due to improvements from the youthful pre-Dayton core, while the other side will say that the improvement wouldn’t have been possible if not for the signings of Willie B. and co.
by Top Ramen on Jan 20, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Suppose the Royals do go on to win 81-83 games. The same arguments will still take place — one side claiming that the rise in wins was due to improvements from the youthful pre-Dayton core, while the other side will say that the improvement wouldn’t have been possible if not for the signings of Willie B. and co.
I’m concerned about that too. Hopefully the 2009 stats of Moore’s acquisitions will be persuasive. But if the Royals end up winning 81 games and Moore’s acquisitions don’t perform well, I think the persistent Moore apologists will just repeat over and over, “Moore got us to .500! Next step, playoffs!” When pressed they’ll say that even though Farnsworth, HoRam and Bloomquist didn’t have good stats, they helped the Royals win some key games. And even though Guillen had a poor BA/OBP/SLG, his 22 HR and 85 RBI were invaluable.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Consider the money coming off the books in ‘09-’10. It will make a .500 or slightly above season that much more worthwhile. Moore’s solution isn’t 4-5 years of 95-100 losses avoiding overpaying for ‘replacement’ level mediocrities like Justin Huber and Neal Musser. His solution is primarily 1-year contracts, depth, and MLB-ready talent with a steady ascent, and vastly increased ownership commitment.
I’m pretty confident HoRam won’t suck this year, as many feel he will. Moore has astronomical credibility with relief pitching. I, too, am hoping Bloomquist doesn’t receive too much P.T., and Farnsworth and HoRam have a quick hook if they suck. Given our now enormous depth, I believe that will happen. I have more faith in Hillman than you do in not grossly overplaying Bloomquist, et al.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Consider the money coming off the books in ‘09-’10. It will make a .500 or slightly above season that much more worthwhile.
And if the projections are correct, it won’t be Moore’s additions this offseason that got us there. With projections so far, it looks like Moore’s many moves may add about .5 wins to what the team would have had anyway. So yes, .500 has value. But if the Royals get to .500, it doesn’t mean that’s all or even mostly because of what Moore has done. We’ll have to wait and see who does what.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've revised my prediction downward
I had us at about 79-81 wins, now I think its more like 75-76.
I see Willie Bloomquist getting entirely too much playing time, Farnsworth pitching terribly, but Trey still using him in high leverage situations, and regression from Aviles.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2009 10:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
And no progression from Gordon, Butler, and Hochevar? No significant playing time/continued improvement from Ka’aihue? Is Callaspo still an above average second baseman? Jacobs’ horrible luck of 2008 continues? 75-76 wins seems low. Already 1.5-2.5 wins below CHONE. Trey will have a moderately short leash on Farnsworth, if he sucks, in terms of leverage. Bloomquist will likely receive no more than 220 PA’s, which is still too much, IMO, but not enough to warrant a 4-5 loss drop.
It amazes me that in people’s negative predictions, they completely disregard breakouts from any of our offensive talent, and ignore the fact that 2 ace pitchers, a #3, and two #4 SP’s, is a very probable scenario for 2008.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Additionally
Bloomquist is nowhere near Pena-caliber. Pena is knocked off our roster. The only damage Pena can do, at this point, is be recalled as a defensive replacement/backup if one of our other MIF’s get injured, or gets recalled in September strictly as a defensive replacement. The projected .330 OBP is a little below league average, but still above average for a bench player, which is exactly what he is. Getting riled up and dropping your win prediction total of 4-5 runs based largely on the damage done by a bench player is a bit much. As for the SLG, it pales in comparison to OBP. And the 180 PA’s or so he’ll receive in 2009 will hardly be damaging. Given his defense and versatility, I’m guessing he’ll add a win, total. Yeah, that’s right. Add one win.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Regression for Aviles is the least of the Royals problems
Since CHONE (and I expect others) still project him as overall as an average-to-above average player.
Despite an improved defense, the bullpen that “somehow” got at least two games worse and the offense isn’t much better.
I thought 78-82 was a reasonable midpoint range, but really, 77-81 makes more sense.
having said, that, I think the spreadsheet from BtBS has its lgwOBA a bit too high. 79 or even 80 might be a better midpoint.
Mild “breakouts” (scare quotes intentional) from Gordon, Hochevar, and Butler could lead to 83 wins, but that’s a pretty optimistic projection. Along with Greinke, they’re really the only “young” players on the team who could be put in the “potential breakout”: category. Maybe Callaspo will hit well enough to be an average player, too. The Royals are overall no longer a young team with tons of potential — some playres fit that description, but as a whole…
Other than the possibiility of Soria to the rotation, what could improve this set of players? Absolutely no Gload and TPJ, little or no Bloomquist, and relegating Farnsworth to a non-setup role in the bullpen would be a start. A healthy John Bale, used as the primary lefty in the pen over even Mahay, is another. Tejada as the setup guy. If Rosa isn’t going to be a starter, he could end up being an the “top of the list” in the pen. HoRam as the blowout pitcher and nothing more.
Jose Guillen traded or put into a platoon role (perhaps at DH). Mike Jacobs never donning a glove or facing a lefty. Calling Kila up to get all of Jacobs ABs if Kila is still raking in Omaha in June.
Making sure DeJesus and Gordon are occupying two of the #1, #2, and #4 spots every game they’re both available against RHPs.
That might give the Royals another couple wins. I guess it depends on how likely you think those moves are…
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 20, 2009 1:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Just curious
If it is possible to project Soria’s numbers as a starter (or maybe 120 innings of Soria) and how that would impact our numbers?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just did a quick estimate
assuming 1.98 leverage, as the WAR spreadsheet does, then moved Soria’s FIP-ERA up by 1.
As a reliever, CHONE projects a 3.11 FIP, and we gave him 65 inninngs x 1.8 leverage = 2.4 WAR
As a starter, then we give hi ma 4.11 FIP over 120 innings = 2.0 WAR.
over 140 IP = 2.3 WAR
over 150 IP =2.4 WAR
So he seems to have more value, straight up, as a reliever than as an 120 IP startner, and then you’d have Farnsworth and Mahay closing. which would actually increase their value a bit, because of leverage, but Farns is just around replacement, so the multiplication wouldn’t help him much. Tejada, or, say, Ramon Ramirez…
So, if Soria had a 4.00 FIP over 130 IP, then he’s worth 2.4 WAR on the spreadsheet.
There are a lot of assumptions there. I still think Soria should have been moving toward a starter role, and probably still should, given the that the closer innings could be replaced by other guys, if not as effectively, so that the total value to the team would be greater. But that’s a longer post.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 20, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
make that "1.8 leverage"
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 20, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not to call you out NY royal
but one of the reasons I put this post up was because i ran across your comment on “can the royals win the AL Central” post over at beyond the boxscore.
I would do a fancy box thing, but I don’t know how to do them.
"In my opinion, yes I think they overachieved in 2008 and the offseason moves have made the 2009 team worse.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Dec 29, 2008 9:04 PM EST up reply 0 recs
Other posts seemed much more positive by you, so I was wondering if because of the moves being done and settled have your predections diminished as this post indicates.
At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....
by tcon125 on Jan 21, 2009 1:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Let's clarify
I said in a comment to that article at BtBS:
As far as winning the Central, I think the Royals are likely to be about an 81-win team in 2009. The Royals would need significant breakouts from two of Butler, Gordon and Hochevar and avoid injuries to key players to win much more than that. While the teams in the AL Central aren’t great, there are multiple pretty good teams. So beating the Indians, Twins and Tigers will be no cake walk. So I think 85 wins is unlikely and I still think that wouldn’t win the Central.
To which I was asked:
what about the Central Champions? [Chicago White Sox]
Chopped liver? ;)
To which I responded:
In my opinion, yes
I think they overachieved in 2008 and the offseason moves have made the 2009 team worse.
So that was about the White Sox. I think the Royals should clearly be better in 2009 than they were in 2008. They definitely didn’t overachieve or get lucky in 2008 (as you can see by their second and third order wins which were very close to or greater than their actual wins). And I think the offseason moves have improved the Royals only minimally. The only question is how much better the 2009 team should be. A good case can be made that they’ll only be 3 wins better. But they could certainly end up being 6 wins better.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 21, 2009 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I stand by my earlier prediction however
73 wins. We overachieved in 2007.
At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....
by tcon125 on Jan 21, 2009 1:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
That's your prediction for 2009?
What about how they performed in 2008? Was that overachieving? What is your reasoning for thinking that the 2009 Royals will be worse? You do know that young players typically improve, right? You don’t think the performances of guys like Gordon, Butler or Hochevar will improve?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 21, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
