Dayton Moore's Masterful Three-Year improvement of the Royals: A Series of Graphs
by devil_fingers on Jun 26, 2009 12:44 PM EDT
48 comments
While the season so far has taken a troubling turn, the Royals' record has improved each season since Dayton Moore took over the helm, and, without looking, I believe they are still ahead of 2008's pace. He's surely made over the team from head-to-toe on every level. At least that's what we've been told: it's been all those new players, the "winners," who have made a difference. But is this really the case? I thought it might be nice to just look at the Royals 2009 RAR (Runs Above Replacement) as listed today at FanGraphs and simply put up a series of graphs seeing what proportion of the Royal's marginal runs/wins are from players that Dayton Moore acquired, and what proportion are from pre-Dayton Moore holdovers. Sure, it's probably not much in the latter category, since I'm sure the KC media would have pointed that out already, but let's take a look anyway. I'm actually not going to offer much commentary -- Dayton Moore's masterful team building skills speak for themselves. I'll leave the detailed analysis for the 6 people who look at and read this. Here's the first one:
| DMGM | RAR | Pre-DMGM | RAR | |
| Crisp | 11.1 | DDJ | 10.3 | |
| Olive Oil | 10.3 | Teahen | 7.6 | |
| Bert | 5.9 | Butler | 7.1 | |
| Willie B. | 2.8 | Buck | 4.5 | |
| BPJ | 2.3 | Gordon | 0.4 | |
| Tug | -2.1 | MITCH | 0.1 | |
| TPJ | -3.5 | Aviles | -9.2 | |
| Guillen | -7.6 | |||
| TPJJ | -2.1 | |||
| Jacobs | -0.6 | |||
| Total | 16.5 | 20.8 |
| DMGM | RAR | Pre-DMGM | RAR | |
| Meche | 23.6 | Greinke | 44.4 | |
| Banny | 14 | Hochevar | 2.9 | |
| Sidney | 5.8 | |||
| Soria | 4.8 | |||
| The Prof | 4.8 | |||
| Tejeda | 3.3 | |||
| Colon | 1.8 | |||
| Bale | 1.6 | |||
| Davies | 1.2 | |||
| HoRam | -0.2 | |||
| Mahay | -0.5 | |||
| Cruz | -0.6 | |||
| Waechter | -0.9 | |||
| Jamey | -0.9 | |||
| Total | 57.8 | 47.3 |
| DMGM | RAR | Pre-DMGM | RAR | |
| Gil Meche | 23.6 | Zack Greinke | 44.4 | |
| Brian Bannister | 14 | David Dejesus | 10.3 | |
| Coco Crisp | 11.1 | Mark Teahen | 7.6 | |
| Miguel Olivo | 10.3 | Billy Butler | 7.1 | |
| Alberto Callaspo | 5.9 | John Buck | 4.5 | |
| Sidney Ponson | 5.8 | Luke Hochevar | 2.9 | |
| Joakim Soria | 4.8 | Alex Gordon | 0.4 | |
| Kyle Farnsworth | 4.8 | Mitch Maier | 0.1 | |
| Robinson Tejada | 3.3 | Mike Aviles | -9.2 | |
| Willie Bloomquist | 2.8 | |||
| Brayan Pena | 2.3 | |||
| Roman Colon | 1.8 | |||
| John Bale | 1.6 | |||
| Kyle Davies | 1.2 | |||
| Horacio Ramirez | -0.2 | |||
| Ron Mahay | -0.5 | |||
| Juan Cruz | -0.6 | |||
| Mike Jacobs | -0.6 | |||
| Doug Waechter | -0.9 | |||
| Jamey Wright | -0.9 | |||
| Tug Hulett | -2.1 | |||
| Luis Hernandez | -2.1 | |||
| Tony Pena, Jr. | -3.5 | |||
| Jose Guillen | -7.6 | |||
| Total | 74.3 | 68.1 |
[This picture is a classic by Dan Szymborski -- I hope he doesn't mind me using it.]
5 recs |
48 comments
Email
Print
Comments
The scary thing for GMDM
Is that Crisp is frozen high for the year, and Aviles is frozen low.
A healthy Crisp probably wouldn’t drop much, if any, so we’ll give him that. But Aviles would surely have risen significantly. The disparity would be much larger.
by kcbottom9th on Jun 26, 2009 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Aviles is out for the whole year?
I didn’t recall hearing that before.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
by cmkeller on Jun 26, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well he isn't
But for a while anyway. The Fox trade thing had a line that the Royals were concerned about his ability to play again this year.
by kcbottom9th on Jun 26, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very interesting, thanks DF
As for being 1 of the 6 people to provide detailed analysis, here’s mine. It seems likely to remain 50/50 at end of year. And, geez, Greinke is good.
"Well, if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear about it for years." Blofeld
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Jun 26, 2009 3:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
While we've seen some flies in DM's ointment
This is a good reminder that it’s not ALL bad and he hasn’t really had time to build the team he wants. Though his seat is warm, I think his less-than-stellar record of signing FA’s is not enough just yet to call for his job. Two reasons come to mind are that he hasn’t yet been able to cash in on the building up of the farm system and that he should have the chance to show that his tendency to overpay for mediocre players is either behind him or somehow part of a master plan (maybe getting Glass to raise the payroll however possible?).
by benfunke on Jun 26, 2009 3:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
hmmm....
If you just looked at the graphs, that might be persuasive, but when you look and see how many players are involved in each category, I think you see that RR is right — for the most part, this is the team Dayton Moore wanted.
The majority of the players (and the most expensive ones) are his — yet they are barely half of the marginal wins. This is particularly stunning with pitching, actually, which is supposed to be his “specialty” (as we’ve convinced outselvses). Yes, more than half the marginal runs/wins are his, but just barely, and all but two of the pitchers are his. Yes, Greinke has been the best pitcher in the league this season, but still…
The issue isn’t the players themselves, as it is peoploe saying “yeah, but look how far Moore has taken the team.” He has made some good moves, but I think it’s clear that much of the credit simply has to go to players that were already with the Royals or in the system. It’s sort of like last year’s improvement — if Aviles had never been brought up (and they did their best not to use him), the Royals would have been another ~70 win team… If it weren’t for Greinke’s monster season so far, say, if he was “only” as good as last season, the Royals would be pretty much the same team they were last season. WEl, the same, except older and more expensive.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jun 26, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a more persuasive argument could be made by
putting a salary pie chart on there too.
by AxDxMx on Jun 26, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, I wanted to keep it simple
to generate discussion
but, yes, salary is essential for the full picture
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jun 26, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
on a side note,
how much do you trust Small-Sample-Size defensive numbers being included in the WAR for fielders (also the uncertainty of how precisely defensive numbers can evaluate a player’s worth)? and should they be included for pitchers (i didn’t go back and check, but I figure pitchers’ WAR is just pitching, not fielding)?
For instance, Callaspo looks great if you omit his fielding; he’s certainly not a good fielder, but can we take it on faith that he is really several runs below replacement as a fielder?
by benfunke on Jun 26, 2009 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pitcher fielding is not currently available at FanGraphs (I don’t think). I’m not sure if UZR covers it at all. I know that Rally does it for Total Zone, and Dewan’s doesn’t, either.
These are small samples sizes for this season, yes. For straight UZR, we need 2-3 years of defensive data. In Callaspo’s case, of course, this rating is consonant with other systems as well as Fans Scoutings Reports.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jun 26, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This breakdown doesn't seem particularly useful
Part of becoming a GM is deciding which players to keep and which players to jettison. DM should get credit for keeping the players he kept as well as credit for the players that he either traded or didn’t re-sign who have done nothing. Of course it’s impossible for him to replace all of the previous regime’s players in three years. But this is his team, and to the extent that it improves, he’s due credit, regardless of whether he acquired the players.
by billexgordler on Jun 26, 2009 9:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Again, this wasn’t meant to be a full analysis (or really, an analysis at all) all the aspects of Dayton Moore’ work in Kansas City.
If it was addressing anything specific, it is the notion that “the cupboard was bare” that you often hear when people say that criticism of Moore is unfair because there was “nothing” when he came to KC. Yes, he made the daring decisions to keep Greinke, Butler (ahem), and Gordon, and good for him.
But your point is interesting: if you are arguing that he gets credit for keeping the players that were already here that form most of the best players on the team at the moment, I take it that you would also disagree with those who say that there’s still a big mess to clean up for which Moore can’t be held responsible, right? After all, if he is going to get credit for the good things from players in the system acquired by the previous, it seems like he should also get blame for the bad ones who are still around.
Again, just a thought.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jun 26, 2009 10:54 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
supposed to be a reply to billexgordler
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jun 26, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not zero-sum
frankly, the way it looks right now, the cupboard was actually barer than anyone thought. aside from Greinke, who three years ago looked nothing like a sure thing, any Royals prospect’s value peaked in like 2006, back when Butler only won batting titles and Gordon looked like a HOFer. Teahen, DJ, Buck—these were the other gems of the system, and they’re average to below average.
i guess i’m just nonplussed (i hereby nominate “nonplussed” as the new “sanguine”) by a post that addresses exactly what we know about this team: 1) Greinke is amazing 2) Guillen and Jacobs are terrible.
by all appearances, DM is a perfectly average GM. he makes some good trades (banny, callaspo, davies) and some bad ones (gathright, shealy). he makes some good signings (meche, ramram) and some bad ones (guillen, ho-ram). by and large i think he’s done an okay job with the major league team. he’s very bad at resource allocation and management and at reading the market.
my bigger concern is what’s happening down on the farm. we’ve been sold a bill by DM and others that it’s work down there that will pay dividends in the future. seems to me like this year has been full of steps backward for our farm system, and it’s depressing. if DM can’t improve our farm system to at least a top-10 group then we have no chance of winning anything, simply because his deficits at the ML level won’t allow us to.
by billexgordler on Jun 27, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a major problem though.
he’s very bad at resource allocation and management and at reading the market.
His “bad ones” have failed (some bad luck, some just bad ideas), but they not only failed they are expensive as hell.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Jun 27, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's a major problem for David Glass
but it’s certainly not insurmountable for a GM. as long as a GM creates a system that is excellent at player evaluation and development (which, the jury is still out for DM) then he can afford to be sub-prime at the market-type stuff, especially in the AL Central. consider the dodgers. they look to be set up pretty well for the next few years because they’ve done such a good job with player development that they can afford to be only average at ML roster construction and resource allocation. i’m not saying that it’s ideal, or that it will guarantee success, but if i had to choose between a guy who was amazing at resource management but poor at player evaluation and development (maybe Shapiro?) and a guy who was amazing at player eval and development but poor at resource management, i’d take the latter every time.
again, i’m not suggesting that DM is amazing at player evaluation and development, i’m saying that that’s where his strength is (or so we’re led to believe by his track record) and that’s a good thing.
You know what ALL the good teams have in common (non-Yankee division)? it’s not fiscally prudent GMs. it’s great farm systems that produce studs. consider this year’s top teams: the Twins, Tigers, Red Sox, Rays, Phillies, Rangers, Angels, Blue Jays. some are excellent at signings and maximizing value and knowing when to cut bait (Rays, Red Sox, Rangers) some are not (Brewers, Twins, Tigers, Phillies, Angels, Blue Jays?), but they ALL have lots of good young players who have developed in their systems.
the marginal benefit that a team like the Royals can get from the FA and trade markets is dwarfed by the benefit that it can get from developing a great system. and the most important thing that DM has done is to not tie up long-term money in guys who were always seen as short term fixes. jacobs and guillen and bloomquist and farnsworth and horam have exactly ZERO impact on the Royals future. none. the Royals will only compete when they can match Granderson and Porcello or Mauer and Morneau or Upton and Longoria or Utley and Rollins or Pedroia and Lester or Fielder and Braun or Kershaw and Loney and Kemp and Ethier with a few of their own all-star caliber guys.
by billexgordler on Jun 27, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree with almost anything there.
Just seems like Dayton’s moves have been expensive with little return (outside of Meche). A lot of the moves were killed here well before they failed to bring a return, that scares me.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Jun 27, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep.
what they’ve been is incredibly conventional. a second-tier franchise going after second-tier free agents. no different than this franchise’s FA moves since 1990 or so.
by billexgordler on Jun 27, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and this isn't meant as a compliment, right?
no different than this franchise’s FA moves since 1990 or so
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Jun 27, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
correct.
that’s a putdown. but it doesn’t change my opinion that he could still be a good GM, it just means he has a much smaller margin for error…
by billexgordler on Jun 27, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn, replied before I read your last comment.
Re: the farm
This is where I’d be fine with trading almost anyone if we can get quality AA or AAA prospects. I would hope for multiple prospects for any guy we trade.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Jun 27, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your last paragraph is what concerns me the most
There are two ways to look at the latest draft which was college-player heavy.
Either it was a drafting to the strength of the draft, which was supposedly college player heavy;
or it was an “Oh sh*t, the guys in the minors aren’t progressing, so we don’t have anything in the high minors. Time to draft some guys to fill those holes”
by Top Ramen on Jun 27, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That painting down at the bottom may be the funniest thing i've seen on this website in the 3 or 4 years ive been on here
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 26, 2009 11:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wish I could take credit for it
but Dan Szymborski did it as part of his “”http://www.royalsreview.com/2009/1/21/729882/yeah-i-know-it-s-a-bit-old" target="new">analysis" of the Bloomquist contract.
I just extracted that part for general use.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jun 26, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would be interesting, in light of that picture
If you could somehow factor in money spent on those numbers.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 27, 2009 12:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
just think if you add Nunez, Howell, and Affeldt to the equation (DM gets credit for R Ramirez, of course)
I guess Affeldt’s gotten a little bit more expensive, but still would be a bargain compared to HoRam and Farns. Howell and Nunez are now closers on their respective teams.
by marbotty on Jun 27, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing that scares me the most is simply the number of guys Moore has brought in that have negative values.
He’s tried some things and most have flopped. It’s about time for some of these moves to start paying off.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Jun 27, 2009 9:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
for 12 million
guillen sucks. I remeber after he got off a suspension and finally started playing for the royals, he requested a trade
by Humble Swagger on Jun 27, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A thought
he has improved the balll club, but at a huge cost in money. Meche couldn’t get 12 million anywhere, but he somhow gets it in kansis city
I think a comparable to Dayton Moore is Ed Wade, only moore does a lot better than Wade. Wade likes buying and spending, moore does buying, spending, and rebuilding
by Humble Swagger on Jun 27, 2009 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Meche got $11M, 5/$55M
And there were multiple teams involved in that discussion. The Royals won by outbidding everyone. This one has worked so far.
Now had he signed Carlos Silva for that kind of money the next year instead of the Mariners getting him, I think he would already be shitcanned. God that was a horrible signing.
by AxDxMx on Jun 28, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand how anyone can say Moore has done a good job
No one on the team can hit worth shit. His bullpen has collapsed thanks to his own dismantling. The prospects he drafted are years away from helping the team. Without Zack we are the Washington Nationals.
That’s not a joke either.
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 28, 2009 1:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
you're full of shit....
the nationals actually have a couple good hitters
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 28, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahahaha yeah true
I was going to say that too, but didn’t want to come across as crazy you know. Actually, I would rather have their top 5 hitters – Zimmerman, Guzman, Dukes, Johnson, Dunn over Gordon, Butler, Dejesus, Teahen & Callaspo….
We have better pitching, but it’s not that huge of a difference. Lannan, Zimmerman and Detwiler are all good pitchers. And they supposedly drafted God too to be their ace
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 28, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
GobbleforCyoung come across as crazy?
That’s unpossible!
by AxDxMx on Jun 28, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
unpossible?
you can join me in the loony bin with words like that!
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 29, 2009 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a Simpsons reference
Thanks go out to Ralph Wiggum
by AxDxMx on Jul 3, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True that
But it IS possible to say that the jury’s still out. If in two years, the system’s not consensus top-10, then he has to go.
by billexgordler on Jun 28, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess
but he had two top 3 picks, and the 12 pick this year. He also had had the resources to spend over 150 million dollars. Locking up Greinke was a good move, and Moore deserves a little credit for making a team competitive enough the past couple of years to persuade Greinke to resign. The same for Soria. Meche’s contract looks good based on his performance the past few years.
As far as player acquisitions that have succeeded:
Bannister
Ram Ram
Callaspo
Olivo (? – leads our team in Slugging %)
and failed:
Davies
Gathright
Tomko
Guillen
Farny
Horam
Gload
Bloomquist
Yabuta
Jacobs
Crisp
Ponson
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 29, 2009 8:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
olivo is absolutely not a success in my eyes
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 29, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't disagree with your overall point
but putting Ponson in the “failed” category is ludicrous. We signed him to a minor league contract to provide depth until Banny and Hochevar were ready, he had a couple good starts and a few more terrible ones but it wasn’t some move that was supposed to help this team long-term.
As for Davies, yeah it looks as if he might not work out but we gave up Dotel for him…I really don’t care that we don’t have a hard throwing reliever that gets injured a lot. It was a good risk to trade for him. Hell, Davies has had flashes of brilliance. That is part of being a GM, taking chances on young players who others have given up on. What if the Cardinals wouldn’t have taken a chance on Chris Carpenter when he was 26-27?
by I need more Esteban on Jun 29, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I don't like Olivo either but you can't call him a failure or a success really
Yeah, Ponson is who he is, but he was 8-5 last year with an ERA of 5. He already has 5 losses this year so I don’t see how its ludicrous to say he’s failed, especially compared to last year. Dotel has been pretty good though. 130 strikeouts in 97 innings??? That’s pretty sick.
I actually haven’t lost out complete hope for Davies. I’m hoping he can turn it around. If this was last year Bannister would have been at the top of the failed list but he’s been solid this year. Davies was solid last year and true, he’s look real good at times this year. I still think having both as starting pitchers at the back of our rotation is so bad, especially if we can invest some money in a real power bat. (not Jacobs)
PS I forgot to put Cruz on the list
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 29, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As sad as this is,
Bloomquist hasn’t failed either. He may be a more expensive than he should be, but he isn’t hurting the team right now.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Jun 29, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you know what would make this post better?
removing the word ‘masterful’ from the title. can we impose a 14-day trial ban on unfunny sarcasm? critique away, go to town with negativity, but if you’re going to use sarcasm, at least try to make it funny.
by kcdc1 on Jul 3, 2009 12:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
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.
