Gut Response: Are the Royals Better than the Tigers?
by Freneau on Jan 29, 2009 4:33 PM EST
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
PrintConsider this a distant cousin to the Secrets of the AL Central series. In the next week or so we'll go through all the Royals' hated AL Central rivals. Today we start with the only team the Royals finished ahead of in 2008: Detroit.
| '07 Pythag | '08 Pythag | |
| Tigers | 89-73 | 78-84 |
| Royals | 74-88 | 72-90 |
I'm going to assume you are roughly familiar with Kansas City's offseason. As for the Tigers:
Lost: Kyle Farnsworth (10 game swing !!!!), Edgar Renteria, Matt Joyce
Added: Adam Everett, Brandon Lyon, Gerald Laird, Edwin Jackson
So, are the Royals better than the Tigers? Don't overthink the question, or qualifiy it, or give me a probability range, just tell me.
62 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
no, I like it this way
we will see where people drop out
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
You forgot they added Edwin Jackson and lost Matt Joyce
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
it doesn't look like they did anything to improve themselves
and expecting their pieces to perform better than last year is like us expecting our pieces to perform better this year.
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
Except that some of our pieces...
such as Mr. Gordon and Mr. Butler (and maybe even Mr. Teahen) really SHOULD have some improvement.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it."
I'm puffing away, Hal.
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 29, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
the point I was trying to make (and poorly so) was that it looks like a wash
and I predict that we will finish ahead of the Tiggers.
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
No more than Verlander, Willis, Jackson, and Zumaya SHOULD.
There’s no reason why formerly highly-touted Royals players should be expected to improve/bounce back more than players on other teams that have shown flashes of brilliance.
by happydrifter on Jan 31, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah
Cabrera had disappointing results by his standards last year but was pretty much the same hitter as his Marlins years. This will be his age 26 season, so he has not even hit his peak yet. A “rebound” season by Cabrera alone could net +15 runs.
Verlander, Bonderman, and Granderson’s glove are reasonable bets to bounce back too.
He's fat, and slow, and has "old" player skills
Is it too early to start his decline phase?
Interestingly, his BR page says he is 6’2", 185 pounds. I think he broke the scale.
If he's a pound under...
240 right now, I’ll eat my shirt.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it."
I'm puffing away, Hal.
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 29, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
He'll eat your shirt
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Jan 29, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good point...
I hope he’s not lurking behind my desk somewhere with some ranch dressing or something. It’s still pretty cold outside today. I need my shirt.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it."
I'm puffing away, Hal.
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 29, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
Cabrera has the opposite of "old" player skills
“Old” player skills are exhibited by a low batting average, high strikeout rate, high walk rate, and tons of power. Think Adam Dunn or Jack Cust.
Cabrera has tons of power, but he is a career .309 hitter with a moderate strikeout rate (around 21% which is pretty good for a power hitter), and a moderately above average walk rate (around 10%). Good all-around hitters tend to age very well.
my bad
I guess I was never sure what was meant by old player skills. I assumed they meant fat, out of shape, old players. Still, if he doesn’t get his act together on fitness, I don’t see him improving. Billy Butler took the opposite approach this year, and hopefully he starts to approach his potential.
good point
hey why is the Astros page called Crawfish boxes?
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Royals > Tigers
Tigers rotation is five question marks. Will Verlander bounce back? Will Bonderman stay healthy? Is Galarraga going to be able to do 08 over? Will Jackson be able to replicate his flukey 08?
realistically speaking
Both rotations have question marks
Greinke and Meche are safer bets than anyone on the Tigers, but Robertson, Galaragga, and Jackson, while hardly awesome, aren’t any worse (taken as a group) than Bannister, Hochevar, and Davies. It’s close, of course. Yeah, Hochevar will probably take a step forward, but Davies could just as easily turn back into Kyle Davies.
The Tigers bullpen is also a question, but after Soria, the Royals have a bunch of crap, unless Tejada can stay tough and Rosa can contribute.
Gordon and Butler should improve, but other than that, the Tigers have several position players that are just way better than anyone on fhe Royals. Cabrera’s defense bites, but even in last year’s down year, he was about +28 offensively, , or about 5 runs better than DeJesus (in maybe his beset offensive year ever) and Aviles put together. DeJesus is one of my favorites, but last year he was about two runs better than Granderson in a down year defensively for Granderson, and in which C-Grand missed the first few weeks of the season. Crisp should help the Royals defensively improve, of course. Magglio’s on the downswing, but I’m pretty sure he’s 2 wins better than Hoagi with one knee tied behind his back.
Polanco not a juggernaut offensively, but his average is only slightly worse than an Alberto Callaspo hot streak, and although he’s aging, he’s been one of the better defensive 2Bs in the AL for years.
Gordon is better than Brandon Inge, of course, but I don’t think we should get too excited if the Royals best position player is better than a stopgap role player — not that Alex is bad, just that it illustrates the gap between the two teams in terms of position payers. Inge can’t hit, but he’s a defensive monster — a poor man’s Beltre/Rolen. Again, Adam Everett and Gerald Laird are role players, but while the Royals were out “having” to spend 2/$3M for a utility guy, the Tigers filled a hole at SS with one of the best infield defenders of the last 20 years.
Laird isn’t much of a hitter, but is actually one of the better defensive catchers in the game.
Now, the Tigers are old, and their pitching might totally fall apart again. So they’re pretty shaky, but I still think they’re clearly better than the Royals at this point.
But I could be wrong, and I hope I am.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 29, 2009 5:56 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Disagree about Robertson Galaragga and Jackson
they are all complete crap. Jackson may be in the Bannister camp where it just might be worth it to find out if something just might click. But it wont.
and dont you dare count out Oscar Villareal. dont you dare.
Galaraga is a little better than complete crap.
But Edwin Jackson for Matt Joyce? I still don’t get that. That’s a steal for TB.
I agree that trade was great for TB
they’re running circles around most other front offices this offseason, but that’s hardly a surprise
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 30, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions
Adam Everett has no gold gloves
Therefore he is only an average defender.
I said no based on likely defensive improvement, Sheffield contract year, and improvement from Mags and Cabrera.
Those pythags for 08
probably swing by an erroneous three games each way because of that massive beatdown they put on us that one game.
those MLB bastards forced YouTube to take the clip down, though
fight the power!
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 29, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
you can find it on MLB's site
but it’s a pain to search for anything there.
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
My gut and my instinct
says the Tigers are better than the Royals. However, thinking about it, and analyzing it, I think the Royals end up being better.
I think the only thing the Tigers really have on the Royals is the offense. And I feel that starting pitching has to be REALLY good for the Tigers to win a division becuase their starters besides Verlander just aren’t that good. And Bonderman is coming from a shoulder injury, we’ll see how that goes.
by Royal from Queens on Jan 29, 2009 9:57 PM EST reply actions
A tough question to answer for sure, and I don’t think the Royals are finished making off-season moves.
With my gut, I say YES that the Royals are better, but I think that may be my fan bias showing through.
I am extremely happy that the Royals got a deal done with Greinke and along with Meche I am pretty happy with out #1 and #2 SPs. Between the 3, Bannister, Hochevar and Davies we should have a solid #4, #5 and spot starter to fill any injury needs or long relief.
I know it is wishful thinking, but I would really like to see the Royal go after one of the remaining big name pitchers, Randy Wolf, Ben Sheets or Oliver Perez. Braden Looper or Jason Jennings might be exciting options as well, although, yes, I know they both would need to have “come back” type years to be considered a good signing, but I like both guys and still see some solid potential out of them.
Webmaster – If you are interested in exchanging links please visit the Fantasy Big Leagues website and click “Baseball Link Exchange”
by FantasyBigLeagues on Jan 29, 2009 9:57 PM EST reply actions
I'm a fan of the Royals,
so I think they are better. See how easy that is?
I just got back from your mom's basement.
The Tigers are better
The Royals have slightly better pitching. The Tigers have much better hitting. The defense is roughly a wash. Clear advantage to the Tigers.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 29, 2009 11:48 PM EST reply actions
just ran some raw numbers on the white sox
man, they suck. I’ll have to see what south side is projecting for who is gong to play what, but right now they look like they’re going to go from winnings the division to fighting for 4th with the Royals.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
Yeah, that team is in major decline
A combination of offseason moves which made the team worse and key players in decline should make the team considerably worse. They are my bet for bottom of the division. I actually think the Royals have a better chance to win more games than the Sox and Twins than the Indians or Tigers (this said without running any WAR numbers, so who knows). The Tigers are an interesting case, because I think they have a realistic chance to compete for first or last in the division. If a few of the right pitchers have very good seasons, it could push them up very high. And if those pitchers have poor seasons, or if a bunch of the older players hit the wall, then they could be genuinely bad.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 30, 2009 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
I think the Royals and Sox are close
I agree about the Tigers, but really do think they will contend with the Indians, at least for a while.
I guess Minnesota could pull it off, I guess, but there’s only so long you can outrun Pythagoras…
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 30, 2009 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
"but there’s only so long you can outrun Pythagoras"
one more year until they move out of the shit dome.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
It will be interesting to see what the new stadium does for them
It will give them a cash boost, so they’ll likely spend a bit more. But that is a notoriously soft fanbase. The new stadium attendance boost won’t last long. And I wonder if the new stadium will play to the team’s strengths or weaknesses.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 30, 2009 12:59 AM EST up reply actions
"strengths or weaknesses"
like, say, the strength of being sheltered from April/September weather in Minnesota?
another outstanding decision by that franchise. A perfect symbol for the Bill Smith era.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 30, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
I would say....
the Twins’ fanbase is somewhat small (given their market size), but absolutely hard-core. Every time I’ve been to the K for a Twins game, there are tons of Twins fans there.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it."
I'm puffing away, Hal.
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 30, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
There are a lot of people from Minneapolis in the KC area
Minneapolis and KC seem to have a lot of business connections.
Another thing, KU has a very high contingent of Minneapolis kids that come to school. I know a lot of kids that had the Twins games at the K circled on their calendar while school was in session.
by I need more Esteban on Jan 30, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know
I went to a lot of games at the Metrodome for the three years I lived in Minneapolis. In my experience the Twins small fanbase was about as hardcore as Josh Groban.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 30, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
is this snark?
another outstanding decision by that franchise. A perfect symbol for the Bill Smith era.
I realize it will be damn cold at times during early/late season. But, I don’t care. Indoor baseball should be absolutely banned. I give the Mariners a pass because even closed Safeco remains open air and has a grass field.
meat
yeah
I believe in outdoor baseball. I also think that retractable roof stadiums (in Florida, for example), are often ripoffs. But not to have one in Minnesota is just a dumb decision. Garza-for-Young-esque.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 30, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions
I can live with a retractable roof and grass field
Domes though, should be nuked before any baseball team comes within 10 miles of moving into it. Tropicana “Field” has to be the most soul destroying sports venue on earth. At least the Twins dump is light, and the Olympic stadium in Montreal had a nice roof pattern, but Tropicana is just dungeon like.
The Allard Baird of incisive internet discourse.
by kcbottom9th on Jan 30, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
but thats what even white sox fans thought last season
and they almost won 90 games
i’ve given up trying to understand the white sox
gavin floyd will blow up
and alexei ramirez will prove himself as the true second coming of angel berroa.
Danks is still pretty good though
+1
Everyone is saying exactly what we were saying last season and, The White Sox won the division, The Tigers blew, the Indians had spurts of greatness mixed in with total crap, and the Twins were the Twins, they just got it done.
I think it’s really tough to predict what will happen after last year’s craziness
by I need more Esteban on Jan 30, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
the 2009 AL Central projections
have the Royals at 79 wins and the Tigers at 85.
http://www.twinkietown.com/2009/1/8/713890/2009-al-central-win-projec
i know those were done a while ago, and i’m not sure of the methodology. but it seems like a fairly tough gap to make up.
i mean, the tigers offense is 26 WAR, which would likely be in the top quarter of MLB; the royals is 19. the pitching is virtually identical (although i think the projections perhaps shortchange zacque and gil).
i don’t think it’s particularly close.
speaking of not outrunning one’s pythag: the tigers beat us last year in pythag, and i don’t think we can even outrun them for two years in a row.
Royals are better than the Tigers
and it all comes down to pitching. Our starting pitching is a wash, both have a great front 2 with a few questions behind them. The Tigers bullpen was awful last year and hasn’t been improved greatly. The Royals lost a few players from our pen, but I think we’ll be toward the middle of the pack or a little above as a unit. The Tigers just seems to be a declining club to me with a lot of fading veterans that may not have that much left. The Royals have a lot of upside and potential that just hasn’t been realized. It’ll be a battle in our division, but I’m sticking with the Royals at third ahead of the Sox and Tigers with about 80 wins.
So what are we thinking here? My gut says
1. Spiders
2. Twins
3. Tigers
4. Royals
5. White Sox
So I voted no on this one. Tigers just gots the better hitters.
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
I went Royals on complete gut without thinking
Royals finished better in ’08 and made moves to seemingly get better for ’09.
If I stop and analyze the situation and consider the down years for the Tigers players, I’d be more likely to pick the Tigers.
Funny how I was the opposite
Gut says Tigers are better
Analysis says Royals are better.
I feel alot as to go right in the pitching aspect of the Tigers during the season. Wayy to many question marks.
by Royal from Queens on Jan 31, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
