Gut Response - Are the Royals Better Than the A's?
by Freneau on Mar 3, 2009 1:07 AM EST
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
PrintWe step outside the division for the first time in the Gut Responses series...
So are the Royals better than the A's? This looks like a close call.
| '07 Pythag | '08 Pythag | |
| Royals | 74-88 | 72-90 |
| Athletics | 79-83 | 76-85 |
Oakland losses: Huston Street, Carlos Gonzalez, Mike Sweeney, Frank Thomas, Matt Murton
Oakland additions: Matt Holliday, Greg Smith, Jason Giambi, Michael Wuertz, Russ Springer, Orlando Cabrera
So you tell me, are the Royals better than the A's?
82 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I was randomly reading Goldstein today and he was very high on their prospects
at some point we may see the A’s and Rangers battling it out each year in the West
You're such an Angels-hater :P
But yes, Oakland has a lot of young talent coming up. 2010 might be their year rather than this season, but they have a bright future.
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
by NHZ on Mar 3, 2009 1:19 AM EST up reply actions
I know
And I get why, too. They’re good at developing pitching and making a good bullpen. Position player track record is sketchy as hell.
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
by NHZ on Mar 3, 2009 1:23 AM EST up reply actions
Angels-lite isn't exactly what we should shoot for, no.
Oddly enough, our division looks every bit as weak as the AL West this year. Conspiracy theories abound….
Don’t forget that we signed Farnsworth. He’ll break the trend of Moore evaluating pitchers well. That’s good, right?
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
by NHZ on Mar 3, 2009 1:26 AM EST up reply actions
HoRam will correct that
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
yep
2010 will be the year half their roster is rookies
but it doesn’t mean they’ll be good yet
in fact, i see most of their top prospects as guys who will struggle initially. either they strike out a lot (hitters), or have serious control problems (pitchers).
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
Cahill has work to do on his control
but Anderson already has pretty good control and command.
Yes
Based on this year alone. Our pitching staff knocks theirs through the water. The difference in offenses is minimal, and the difference in defenses (less significant) is maybe 2-3 wins, advantage A’s. So many ’if’s’ with their offense, too. Can Chavez/Giambi stay healthy? Will Cust play in the field? Will Ellis rebound? What about Bobby Crosby’s prolonged breakthrough? Is Kurt Suzuki really this awful? Will Daric Barton prove ‘08 was a fluke? I’m expecting between 72-77 wins in the A’s, this year.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
Forgot about O-Cab, and I just checked the Baseball Projections
They’ll probably finish closer to .500 than I thought, but I predicted 83 wins for the Royals, so I’ll say Royals 83, and A’s mid-to-upper 70’s. Modifying my prediction, a tad.
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 Mar 3, 2009 1:29 AM EST up reply actions
Save this post, people
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
PECOTA doesn't see grit, though.
Or handedness in the rotation. Do the A’s have a lefty veteran stabilizer? Didn’t think so.
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 Mar 3, 2009 1:39 AM EST up reply actions
Another FWIW
Better and more meaningful than Pythag. record: BP’s second order wins and third order wins.
2008
KC – 75 and 76 (2nd order wins and 3rd order wins
Oak – 76 and 77
The immoderate moderator
First order wins are the number of games the team should have won for the runs the scored and allowed (Pythag. wins). Second order wins are the number of games the team should have won based on how many runs they should have scored and allowed based on their stats (through a runs created calculation). Third order wins are second order wins adjusted for the quality of their competition (by their competition’s stats).
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
you can always look it up at Baseball Prospectus
both the adjusted standings and glossary sections of their site are free
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 4, 2009 12:25 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, it's under "statistics"
Click that on the front page, and the adjusted standings link is in the grouping on the bottom right of the stats page.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 4, 2009 1:13 AM EST up reply actions
Have you seen who's been competing for the A's non top 2 rotation spot?
Dallas Braden, Gio Gonzalez, Sean Gallagher, Josh Outman… now all of them can potentially outpitch our number 5(except Braden, I think the A’s scratched his screwball, which was his only plus pitch), but I wouldn’t count on any of them.
Have I mentioned their #1 is recession candidate Duchscherer and their #2 is Dana Eveland, basically a crappy version of David Wells?
…and they really don’t project to hit all that well. Holliday is the one good player who I think will hit around .870 OPS. Then you got question marks and league average players all around the diamond.
Maybe they’ll finish with a better record because AL West is really bad for an AL division. But better team? No way! Not this year.
so could Gio and Outman
Would I bet on it? No.
by playingwithfire on Mar 3, 2009 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
Lots of coulds
Hochevar, Davies and Bannister could all be better than Gallagher in 2009.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions
The three major projection systems project Gallagher better than the Royals trio (some by quite a lot)
ZIPS 2009
Gallagher 4.23 ERA
Hochevar 5.56 ERA
Davies 5.52 ERA
Bannister 5.24 ERA
CHONE 2009
Gallagher 4.43 ERA / 4.54 FIP
Hochevar 4.85 ERA / 4.83 FIP
Davies 5.19 ERA / 4.83 FIP
Bannister 5.01 ERA / 4.69 FIP
PECOTA 2009
Gallagher 4.72 ERA
Hochevar 4.95 ERA
Davies 5.29 ERA
Bannister 5.30 ERA
Yeah. I thought we were talking about "coulds"
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions
based off what?
Gallagher has never had MLB success and is not getting younger by the day. I mean I like this guy and the A’s has a way of turning nobody(which Gallagher is not) into pitching stars. What I don’t buy is that that guy is going to be Gallagher.
Look, the A’s probably has one of the top 5 minor league systems in the MLB. Royals is somewhere in the bottom 15 IMO and are especially poor pitching wise in the top minors.
But for this year alone, I bet the Royals is better, simply more depth in MLB quality players.
by playingwithfire on Mar 3, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions
I am not sure we are talking about the same guy
Gallagher has never had MLB success and is not getting younger by the day.
The Sean Gallagher who pitches for the A’s just turned 23 and pitched well in almost 500 innings in the minors (including AA and AAA) showing the ability to do the three of the most important things within a pitcher’s control — miss bats, control walks, and limit home runs. The K and HR rates generally came with him to the majors (which counts as a major league success), but he needs to tighten his walk rate to become a mid-rotation major league starter (which is a decent possibility given his young age and his minor league track record). He is no future star, but is a decent pitcher right now with a realistic chance of becoming more than that.
I may come off as a bit harsh
“He is no future star, but is a decent pitcher right now with a realistic chance of becoming more than that.”
but I agree with the statement above. The guy is not projected to be a star. Of course he can be in the Coliseum but we’ll see. I’m just saying all the projection seems awfully optimistic.
I’m not saying Hochevar will breakout this year. But I think both are going to suck to the same degree. I really do have an irrational hate of Hochevar, maybe because I wanted us to draft Lincecum that year(Wieters the year after, and Smoak this year…sigh…)
by playingwithfire on Mar 3, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions
plus, the routine with the watermelons is gold
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 9:23 PM EST up reply actions
Gallagher wasn't scouted by Dayton Moore
these numbers mean nothing
the man will be out of baseball by 2011
For the sake of fun
I’ve wOBa- and FIP-ified my PECOTA and ZiPS spreadsheets. So here are the “missing” FIPs. I’m just putting it here for informatoinal purposes.
ZiPS
Gallagher 4.35
Hochevar 5.06
Davies 5.06
Bannister 4.98
PECOTA::
Gallagher 4.53
Hochevar 4.62
Davies 4.98
Bannister 4.86
Hmmm… since I have all three systems not converted to FIP and wOBA, is it time to revisit our projection?
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 4, 2009 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
Revisit! Revisit!
I’d average ZiPS, PECOTA and CHONE. All other projection systems need not apply.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 4, 2009 1:14 AM EST up reply actions
OK
but I have a feeling the results aren’t going to be any more pleasing
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 4, 2009 1:33 AM EST up reply actions
Nope
But always interesting
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 4, 2009 1:44 AM EST up reply actions
also
this week is sorta busy (for me, anyway). I might post it next week.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 4, 2009 1:34 AM EST up reply actions
No
Depends a lot on Oakland’s health, but their offense is only slightly worse than ours, and their pitching is better IMO.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Really? Their offense is worse?
Let’s compare, position-by-position. I’ll pick the Royals best hitter according to CHONE at each position, with wOBA (using CHONE because those wOBAs are at Fangraphs, easily accessible). Not the3 greatest way to do it, but it’s a quick thing, anyway.
Royals
C- Buck .311 (projection better than Olivo’s — well, everywhere)
1B Butler .353
2B Callaspo .326
3B Gordon .350
SS Aviles .324
LF DDJ .339
CF Crisp .328
RF Teahen .339 (all three systems project as better than Hoagy)
DH Jacobs .340
Oakland (guessing here with BP… Giambi isn’t listed as a starter)
C Suzuki .320
1B Giambi .367
2B Ellis .326
3B E. Chavez .335
SS O. Cabrera .318
LF Matt Holliday .368
CF Ryan Sweeney .326
RF Travis Buck .338
DH Jack Cust .369
Well, it’s “tied” in the sense that we have 1 “tie,” and 4 better on Oak, and 4 better on KC. And, yes, Chavez may give way to Hanahan a lot, and Giambi and Cust will be fighting for time at DH and have defensive problems when they don’t.
On the other hand, Giambi, Cust, and Holliday are way better than any other hitters on KC. Moreover, we know that KC plans on playing Guillen and Olivio over Teahen and Buck — and Guillen is also worse on defense (although not quite as bad according to TucsonRoyal — but check CHONE’s projectoins, too). And we also don’t know if Callaspo is going to start over… that guy.
My assumption is that their offense is clearly better than KC’s.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
they built their teams differently
lets say they switched offseasons trades/signings…
giambi vs jacobs
cruz/farnsworth vs springer/wuertz
crisp vs cabrera
the A’s starting pitching is a big issue, they seem to have lots of confidence or maybe false hope that their group can maybe pull a 08 twins and be productive despite inexperience. that the improved offense and loaded bullpen, and always good defense may mask some of those rotation weaknesses, whether thats enough to contend we’ll see or closer to 75 or 85 wins.
the interesting part most of the veterans they brought were for 1 yr deals, so they maybe back in the same situation next offseason trying to replace multiple holes. maybe by then a few of their top prospects or mlb ready players will be able to take on larger roles
The A's are being seriously underestimated
This offseason, the A’s effectively replaced three of the worst offensive regulars in the league (Gonzalez, Brown, and Crosby) with Holliday, Giambi, and Cabrera. The A’s will have plus defenders at every position except CF and whoever is not at DH between Cust and Giambi. The A’s do not have a starter as good as Greinke or even Meche, but they have much more depth plus two of the top pitching prospects in baseball tuning up in AAA. And the A’s will not be be giving a starting rotation spot to Horacio Ramirez.
The A's fifth starter
I really don’t know because I don’t know who is competing for the A’s fifth starter spot, but will the A’s fifth starter have a career FIP of 4.95 or better? Will he have an FIP over the last three years of 4.84 or better? I know the A’s rotation is light at the top, but maybe they have more depth than I thought.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
so far the candidates for 5th spot
gio gonzalez
josh outman
edgar gonzalez
jerome williams
after that its more prospects slated for AAA which could possibly have the best rotation in minor league baseball, realistically though may not be ready until mid 09 at the earliest:
cahill
anderson
mazzaro
simmons
by Asfan4ever723 on Mar 3, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
So I guess you have Braden as the #4
CHONE projected FIP
G. Gonzalez 4.93
Outman 5.15
E. Gonzalez 3.82
Williams 4.69
H. Ramirez 4.11
I don’t think this proves anything. It’s just interesting information, and other projection systems have some significantly different numbers. I certainly think that HoRam and E. Gonzalez projections are wildly out of line with reality.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
The depth is impressive
The A’s basically have eight major league ready (or near ready) pitchers that can take the ball as the fifth starter, and all are under age 25 except E. Gonzalez (26) and Williams (27), so the odds are good that at least one of the eight will step forward and beat their projections.
The Edgar Gonzalez projection is for the bullpen (as is HoRam’s). Gonzalez is a nice sleeper (his numbers are skewed by an unsustainable 15% HR/FB rate thanks in large part to pitching in Arizona).
Braden’s CHONE projection is 4.24 FIP by the way.
The A’s basically have eight major league ready (or near ready) pitchers that can take the ball as the fifth starter,
I’m not sure what this means. Take the ball and do what with it? I’m not trying to be snarky here, but you’re saying they have eight guys who can come and do what exactly? I don’t think they have eight guys who are likely to be good enough to pitch at the level of an average #5 starter (which is pretty poor). One may well beat their projections. I wonder how many starts and how many pitchers they’ll have to go through before they find that one. And how much will he beat his projections by? I don’t know how high-quality and MLB-ready that depth is.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
depth is also injury insurance
if you have one guy suck and one guy get hurt, a lot of teams end up throwing complete garbage out there… the A’s probably won’t ever get to that point
I realize depth is a good thing
But I guess your statement above depends on how you define “complete garbage.” It seems like their depth is such that they are likely to have a #5 SP who is roughly average for that rotation slot, along with probably a couple of guys who aren’t much worse than that.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Which, by the way is also true of the Royals
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
yea... but there is value in that, which I think is everyones point
some teams are at a #8 starter at that point
dont forget their bullpen depth
devine
ziegler
springer
wuertz
blevins
casilla
dennis reyes (who they are looking to add also)
most teams could stop there and be done with it but in AAA they have some interesting relievers:
andrew carignan
bailey/lansford/webb…who also have sp experience
some situational lefty types: kilby, marshall
filler w/ some mlb experience: gray, cameron, schroder
by Asfan4ever723 on Mar 3, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
it really is kinda Twins esque team
depth, not much quality, good defense
of course the twins are a sacred organization that plays baseball THE RIGHT WAY and the A"s are newfangled and can’t win anything in the end
and also that the As actually have a good defense
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
Looks like the A's have decided to start playing baseball THE RIGHT WAY
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
Proximity to the Angels
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
It is interesting that Beane's strategy involves building a team more like the toolsy, traditional Twins of the early 00's
Good pitching, decent hitting, very good defense. The real difference being that the Twins had some elite pitching talent at the top of its rotation and in the bullpen. Defense is all the rage now. I wonder what’s next. Base running? Better trainers? Ushers?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
who knows
i think training staff might actually be a big one
GMs all over are getting smarter
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Except for Dayton Moore, right?
How could you blow that opportunity for snark?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
beane's other recent infatuation
not sure why collecting as many 2b types as possible
ellis- resigned 2 yrs
cardenas-attempting ss, but likely will go back
patterson
wimberly
pennington
chen
petit
weeks
by Asfan4ever723 on Mar 3, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Too many second basemen????
Any GM that does that must be a complete fucking idiot. That utter moron Dayton Moore once had Grudzielanek, Callaspo and German on the same roster. And now Callaspo, Bloomquist and Teahen. Both Beane and Moore need to be fired like yesterday.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
It means that unlike most teams, including the Royals,
the A’s have eight candidates for the last spot in the rotation who are good enough to be legitimate major league starters (or on the verge of becoming one, as all four minor leaguers might not be major league ready on opening day, but the entire season is not played in April).
The four major leaguers all project better than a fifth starter (your research showed the cutoff between fourth and fifth starters was around 5.15 FIP). The four minor leaguers project close to there too. All eight have the talent to be better than that, with Anderson and Cahill ranking as two of the best pitching prospects in baseball. Six are under 25, so improvement should be expected (and the other two are young enough to still improve) and a breakthrough (or two) would not be shocking.
To start the season, the A’s can pick who they think will be perform the best right now, and then continually reevaluate that decision throughout the season, as the other seven will be pitching either in the bullpen or the minors.
But the Royals have plenty of ex-Mariners
who definitely know how to handle those losers from Oakland
Plus, all the ex-Braves give the Royals an edge in interleague play
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
A's just signed Nomar
AL West frontrunners now lol
This should have been one hell of a lot closer
The clowns over at the other site must have joined us to vote.
They came over here to vote that the Royals are better than the A's?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 3, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
too bad he shaved his head
but maybe his agent can tell teams he’ll pay for himself with all the bald caps the team will sell
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
Hey, CHONE has him as a +4/150 hitter
that’s better than Mike Jacobs, and the Royals are dangerously thin at 1B/DH
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
he could probably help some team
as a part-time/platoon DH, if he’d be willing to work for the minimum/minor league deal. But that’s about it. Who needs that? I can’t think of a team like that at the moment… Maybe the Angels, since Kendry Morales is never going to get a real shot. Texas? Minnesota (if they want to play Kubel in the field… ugh)? Baltimore if they want to play Huff at first and start Luke Scott?
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think the Rangers do.
We moved Chris Davis back to first and Hank Blalock over to DH. That, combined with a few half-days for our outfielders (namely Hamilton) and the absurd number of extra catchers we have probably locks down DH for us.
However, if we moved Hank (somehow), I would absolutely want us to sign someone like Thomas. JD has been known for the one-year sign-‘n’-flip type deals, and though I don’t think he could bring back huge returns, it’s always possible.
thanks
The Davis/Young/Blalock situation was something I even read about again today, but it totally slipped my mind. But of course they should be looking to dump Blalock’s (and even moreso, Young’s) salary ASAP.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 3, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
I think basically everyone at LSB wants to move Young.
Sadly, it seems like that contract would require us to absorb most of the cost and probably not get much in return.
However, he was injured a good bit last year (broken/fractured fingers), so it’s entirely possible that playing a less strenuous defensive position and having full use of a hand will contribute to a better year.
I voted No
Observation time: It seems like I vote the opposite of what the general consensus is…
Weird.
by Royal from Queens on Mar 3, 2009 7:57 PM EST 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
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
