Royals Are Who We Thought They Were, Injuries and Slumps Don't Explain Much
With 81 games played -- I know, it amazes me too -- the Royals stand at 35-46, a bad record made a little more respectable thanks to a little two-game winning streak at the wire. As discussed last week however, while both the team and the stadium look much different three years into the Moore regime, the results have not drastically changed.
Record Through 81 Games:
| 2009 | 35-46 |
| 2008 | 37-44 |
| 2007 | 34-47 |
| 2006 | 27-54 |
There's obviously much more to be said, and as we wrap up this week and head into the All-Star Break, stay tuned for more posts breaking down the first half. The short version is this: the 2009 Royals have represented both the best and worst of what we guessed the Dayton Moore Era might look like. Using WAR (Wins Above Replacement) rankings as a good quick and dirty guide, the familiar mix of good pitching, bad hitting and defense emerges.
The WAR rankings are stark: Royals pitchers rank third in baseball, while the offense is 29th and the defense 23rd.
In this post, I'd like to say something about injuries, since the injury issue has and will continue to be used to defend peoples' employment. The Royals have suffered three major injuries: Gordon, Aviles, & Crisp.
First, without even broaching the question of how badly his situation was handled, I'm not sure how many tears should be shed for Dayton regarding Coco Crisp's injury, as Crisp has had health concerns since the middle of the decade. Acquiring him was a gamble -- perhaps a good one -- and ultimately, it didn't work out. Yea, it sucks that he got hurt. But why do you think he was available in the first place? Even then, the gap between Crisp and Maier (the last semi-ready outfielder left standing in the Royals system) has not been nearly as huge as some have supposed. The Royals lost Coco Crisp in 2009, not Carlos Beltran in 2005. They lost some OBP and perhaps a pinch of range, but we're talking about a win here, tops.
As for Aviles, his 127 PAs of .183/.208/.250 offense killed the Royals when he was available, then buried them when he was gone, ushering in a hideous and pointless continuation of the TPJ Era. (One thing about Moore, he can admit a mistake.) The rapid collapse and fall of Aviles has been a tough one, to be sure, as a borderline MVP-level player last season (seriously, look it up) has been replaced by the Bad Aviles-Luis-TPJ-St. Willie monster. Obviously, since Aviles has long been part of Moore's masterplan at short, we should give him a full pass for his bad fortune that the plan may not work out. Oh wait. As such, you can put the Aviles injury in an odd category: legitimately major, yet not quite a functioning excuse either.
Finally, we come to Gordon, who has been gone since the ninth game of the season. Gordon's injury is unlike the previous two in that it was an out-of-nowhere injury to a major part of the team's young core. Losing Gordon has been extremely problematic, as he had a reasonable chance of being the team's best overall hitter this season and a respectable fielder at third. The funny thing is, and again, I hate to point this out, that in an odd way the Gordon injury has been beneficial. Prior to the season the Royals had a vague idea of Teahen and Callaspo as a kind of platoon without a shape at second-base. Teahen, as bad as this may sound, is one of the team's better hitters, and Callaspo is/was a guy who needed to play for developmental and evaluation purposes. Gordon's injury got both of them into the lineup on a full-time basis, minimizing the offensive loss significantly. So even if you imagine a great first half from Gordon that never happened, you also need to realize that Gordon's injury allowed Callaspo's first half and a good chunk of Teahen's bounceback campaign to also take place. Depending on how you think Teahen would have done at second base, even with Callaspo's spotty record there, he's likely superior to Teahen, at least for this season, at second. So, in all, your left with two tertiary negatives: Teahen's lesser glove (debatable) at third and increased playing time for St. Willie all over the place. My own sneaking suspicion is that St. Willie was going to get his PAs no matter what however.
Yes, this is all very imprecise. In a pure baseball sense, the 2009 Royals have been hurt by injuries, especially the Mike Aviles injury. As mentioned above, I'm hesitant to write Dayton too large of a check for Aviles not working out, given that if TPJ had just hit an empty .240 last season Aviles would have never emerged. Past that, I'm not so sure the impact has been large. Certainly they haven't been torpedoed to the point that we all just throw up our hands and say "let's try this again next year, this was a great group". With this roster, you just can't say that. Sure, losing Crisp means Trey can't field the DDJ-Coco-Maier lineup that would likely have been his best option, but that was never going to happen anyway.
Furthermore, the pitching staff, save a few dubious injuries and a Soria sidelining that perhaps altered Hillman's options in four games, the hurlers have been fine. That is good luck. Other than some roster gamesmanship regarding Ponson, I don't recall a single Royal starter missing a turn due to injury. When you account for the fact that the only strength the Royals have is their starting pitching, I think that this good luck greatly mitigates what's happened to the position players.
The same thing applies to the notion of over and under-performers. Billy effing Butler is anchoring the infield defensively for goodness sakes. Miguel Olivo is having a career season. Brian Bannister has remerged. Zack Greinke is having a historically great season. Spare me the sob story that the Royals are losing because Jamey Wright had a bad month and Mike Jacobs is slumping.
Look, the bad and the good from the first half, they've happened, and nobody can do anything to change them. The Royals are out of it. Out of a bad division. 2010 matters now. Aside from Kila -- who appears to be blocked/unappreciated -- not a single top 10, or maybe even top 15 prospect in the system is at the AAA level right now.
If 2010 isn't going to be any different, then Dayton needs to do what he didn't do last deadline. He needs to sell.
5 recs |
50 comments
|
Comments
Has there been a better time in the history of mankind to trade a player
than right now with Olivo?
by jsolo on Jul 6, 2009 2:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Crown Their Asses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 6, 2009 2:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
sell sell sell
i want
bannister
olivo
teahen
guillen
jacobs
wright
all gone, I would trade Soria too for the right price. Dump them all, especially Bannister – if you can get a NL contender to give you a major league ready bat, you press the button on that so fast your head falls off
-
by slayor on Jul 6, 2009 3:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
Everything must go to make way for the 2010 models!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jul 6, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No reasonable trade-in will be refused!
Cash back on all old models named Guillen!
It’s crrrrrrraaaazy down at Dayton Moore’s Car Lot!
by AxDxMx on Jul 6, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cash For Clunkers Program!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fuck This Team. Period.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Jul 7, 2009 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hoagy Done It
Seriously, if we could field this team:
DDJ LF/Crisp CF
Callaspo 2B
Gordon 3B/Butler 1B
Jacobs/Guillen DH
Gordon3B/Butler1B
Teahen RF/Aviles SS
Crisp CF/DDJ LF
Teahen RF/Aviles SS
Olivo/Buck/Pena c
We would be far better off than any arrangement we’ve seen this year. Hoagy’s temperment and salary will not allow him to be the lesser half of a DH platoon. I’m discounting injuries, of course, but this lineup never had a chance.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 6, 2009 3:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You are correct that the Royals 2009 season is over and it is time to start thinking of 2010. Enen though they have one two in a row, I don’t have a joy about watching this team for the rest of the year. The offense and defense is terrible and not getting any better. If the defensive fundumentals of the this team do not get better, then I think you have a case to get rid of Hillman. I watched a Cardinals game where the SS did not set up correctly for a throw from the outfield that cost them a run and he heard about it from Larussa and a coach when he got to the dugot. I don’t see that here. I wonder if the players have already given up on Hillman and the season. They are aware more than us what a long grind it is going to be for them until the end of the season and will play it out just to boost their stats. Myself, I won’t be watching much of the Royals for the rest of the year for the reasons stated above and by your post.
by BlueBloodRoyal on Jul 6, 2009 8:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Um, hello?
Trey made them pick up folding chairs once!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jul 6, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Gordon injury
There are really two ways to look at it — it hurt because this was supposed to be Gordon’s breakout year.
However, if he was healthy, neither Teahen or Callapso would have as many ABs – and both are the only two players with .800+ OPSes.
by Top Ramen on Jul 6, 2009 9:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
and the thing is
that goes squarely on Dayton. Even with Gordon healthy, he could have had Callaspo 2B, Teahen RF, and Gordon 3B.
But with the Guillen signing and its death-do-us-part status, he goes in RF.
So they we’re left with a situation where the Royals planned on going into the season where either or both Teahen or Callaspo would be playing less that full-time.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jul 6, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another note on Aviles
If Moore gets off the hook for Aviles collapse/injury this season, then that even more reinforces that he shouldn’t get any credit for his monster 4+ WAR season last year, without which the Royals would have been just another team barely winning 70 games (and assuming TPJ could have managed to be replacment level for the second half of the year).
“Heckuva job, Dayton!” should be site header for the rest of the season.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jul 6, 2009 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hillman just wanted to make sure his quote really came true.
“That whole Aviles thing just never worked out.”
Fuck This Team. Period.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Jul 7, 2009 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The underriding theme
is the lack of organizational depth (of position players) – if nothing else, this season has made that abundantly clear.
Time to cash in some of the currency (pitching) and restock the positional player options in the organization, because this team can’t contend until at least 2012 unless the few organizational assets are distributed more evenly.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
by loyal2sdad on Jul 6, 2009 11:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Any significant rumors or at least projections on teams that would be a good fit
for the pieces that we have to sell?
Obviously the Yankees are always an options, but who else?
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Jul 6, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Supposedly the Royals are scouring Yunel Escobar and Jeff Franceour hard
But I can’t imagine how we would work a trade. Who could we offer that is worth Escobar?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jul 6, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DDJ has outplayed him so far this year
1.5 ot 1.2 WAR without adjusting for league. And with DDJ hitting cleary below his talent level.
DDJ is signed through 2010 on a super-cheap contract, but I’m not sure that’s enough to outweigh Yunel’s youth and club-control. I wouldn’t make the trade if I were the Braves.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jul 6, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know that I would make that trade.
But you do have to give talent to get it.
If they made it a true blockbuster with Guillen and DDJ going for Escobar and Frenchy, plus we pick up Guillen for the rest of this year, I could handle that. Teahen in RF, Mitch in CF, Bloomers in LF?
by AxDxMx on Jul 6, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Would Have
To be the most impotent OF in MLB. Where will Frenchy play if not LF? At any rate, Escobar would be a massive upgrade at SS.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 6, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
frenchie
isnt a LF thus Teahen would go there, and frenchies defense alone makes up for the average bat…defensive upgrade for putrid defense from guillen works, and Escobar by far is a huge upgrade, it would have to be DDJ, Guillen, and possibly Bannister for that trade to work
Pujols takes out "I" in BIG and "A" in MAC, previously considered to be an unyielding, consonant threat
by DESTROYER on Jul 6, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they got Banny too I would say DM got raped
unless they totally picked up Guillen’s contract.
by AxDxMx on Jul 6, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On ESPN they're saying Teahan to the Braves for Escobar.
What about Teahan & Guillen for Escobar?
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Jul 6, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Either way, that's a complete hosejob by DM
Maybe I could regain my faith in DM if that goes down.
by AxDxMx on Jul 6, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any significant rumors or at least projections on teams that would be a good fit
for the pieces that we have to sell?
Obviously the Yankees are always an options, but who else?
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Jul 6, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yes
Reds, Red Sox, A’s, Rockies, Cardinals(even though you guys hate them), Cubs, Atlanta, Mets, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Detroit, White Sox, Twins, Rays, Blue Jays, Angels, Rangers. These are all teams that are currently in their division races, and have some decent players to give in return
Pujols takes out "I" in BIG and "A" in MAC, previously considered to be an unyielding, consonant threat
by DESTROYER on Jul 6, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does this mean that defense isn't all that relevant?
If you can have the 3rd best pitching with such crappy defense? Or does this mean that with a semi-decent defense, we’d have the best pitching in the league?
by marbotty on Jul 6, 2009 1:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i believe the WAR rankings he's using incorporate pitching independent of defense
such as FIP or tRA.
but only RR could say for sure
by benfunke on Jul 6, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From Another Thread
Royals IF Defense= Dive in the general direction of the ball then go cover a base. Royals RF defense= jog over to wherever the ball stopped rolling and gun it back to the IF to show off your +arm.
The number of balls this range-challenged group don’t get to must make a huge difference in actual outcome, and since they’re not “errors” it hurts ERA’s.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 6, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the WAR stats for pitching are defense-independent
by royalsreview on Jul 6, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but one thing that gets missed by the "defense-independent" stats
(and this is not a critique of anyone/anything, i’m just bringing this up), is that one could claim that a better defense makes a pitcher better without actually touching the ball: for instance, lower pitch counts per inning and being able pitch to the batter rather than pitch around the defense (i.e. picking pitch type/location based on it being the most effective rather than trying to keep the batter from putting it into play). as such, i don’t think you can count FIP or tRA as truly defense-independent (not that anyone really does) because you can’t measure the mental effect of good or bad defense on a pitcher.
by benfunke on Jul 6, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can’t measure the mental effect of good or bad defense on a pitcher.
Arguments from igornance rule!
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jul 6, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then I Must
Be king.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 6, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
is this too long to be the tagline for my comments?
from Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought
In his most important later statement on these questions, "The Theory of Complex Phenomena," Hayek tells us that, because social life is made up of complex phenomena, "economic theory is confined to describing kinds of patterns which will appear if certain general conditions are satisfied, but can rarely if ever derive from this knowledge any predictions of specific phenomena."
If we ask why it is that social phenomena are complex phenomena, part of the reason at any rate lies in what Hayek earlier characterized as the subjectivity of the data of the social sciences: social objects are not like natural objects whose properties are highly invariant relatively to our beliefs and perceptions; rather, social objects are in large measure actually constituted by our beliefs and judgments. Social phenomena are non-physical, and Hayek has stated that "Non-physical phenomena are more complex because we call physical phenomena what can be described by relatively simple formulae." And, because of the subjectivity of its data, social life always eludes such simple formulae.
by benfunke on Jul 6, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
or maybe this, which is a direct quote from Hayek; it acually mentions "measurable variables", which is more to the point for me
“This brings me to the crucial issue. Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.”
by benfunke on Jul 6, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html
and his speech continues (he said aloud to the empty room):
“It can hardly be denied that such a demand quite arbitrarily limits the facts which are to be admitted as possible causes of the events which occur in the real world. This view, which is often quite naively accepted as required by scientific procedure, has some rather paradoxical consequences. We know: of course, with regard to the market and similar social structures, a great many facts which we cannot measure and on which indeed we have only some very imprecise and general information. And because the effects of these facts in any particular instance cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, they are simply disregarded by those sworn to admit only what they regard as scientific evidence: they thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant.”
by benfunke on Jul 6, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So does he go on to say how you can measure these intangibles
or is this just another pompous assbag telling us that intangibles are important?
Not disagreeing with what he said, but its fairly obvious that not all factors involving humans are measurable, mostly because we can’t quantify processes that happen in the brain… yet. That seems like an awfully long way of getting a point across. And even then studies have shown that humans make different decisions facing the same data. So how can you model for that? Probability would be one way, or perhaps someday we will be able to use the superpositioning of electron states (quantam mechanics/quantum computing) to see all outcomes to an event, and correctly deduce which action was taken or will be decided upon based on all factors. Until then, I think it is safe to assume that mental state on a daily basis for a ballplayer should be assumed to be normal, unless there are circumstances outside the game that take away from concentration for extended periods (example: John Buck’s wife last year).
I was an Econ major, and most of them know that theory is great, but doesn’t usually apply to real life situations. Mostly because economics assumes an individual to be rational, and we all know that people can be pretty irrational.
by AxDxMx on Jul 7, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it is safe to assume that mental state on a daily basis for a ballplayer should be assumed to be normal
that’s just it – you have to assume it’s normal because there’s no way to measure it. but Hayek’s concern is when non-physical scientists ignore this type of unmeasurable variable and proceed as if it didn’t exist.
i agree with his implication that you have to at the very least qualify any analysis by noting that unquantifiable variables are excluded, and i think this often gets glossed over in the developing baseball statistical analytics.
by benfunke on Jul 7, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I mean by assuming it is normal
Is that over the season a given player will fluctuate with his mental state, but unless there is something out of his control that affects only him (depression, family issues, etc.), then there is some kind of baseline there that the player has, and that could be considered the average. On the other hand, since you don’t know jack about anyone’s mental state at any given time, how would you go about quantifying it anyways? I’m all for philosophical discussions, but when it comes down to it, what are you going to do? Not use statistics because we can’t possibly know all the variables? That’s silly. And you can say it is excluded, that’s great, but then the arguments for and against the unknowable variables become another philosophical argument that can’t be backed by statistics, and neither side will likely decide to change sides. So I would say when most things are quantifiable and explain 95% of the variation in the statistics, that should suffice. But yes, I will agree and say that there are unquantifiable variables excluded, and that we have no way of knowing how much they effect the statistics. But to me, that Hayek piece is aimed more at economists and social scientists trying to predict behavior, not athletic endeavors.
by AxDxMx on Jul 7, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't sabermetrics just social scientists trying to predict behavior?
All i was getting at was that (many, many comments ago) when i was answering marbotty’s question by saying essentially that “WAR uses fielding-independent stats” it is important to keep in mind that “fielding-independent” is a relative term as it leaves many variables unaccounted for. His question was whether better defense could improve a team’s pitching WAR, and i submit that – while we’ve taken all the steps we can to isolate pitching and defense – it is not set in stone that they are totally independent.
(Then i went on a mini-rant b/c the exclusion of unquantifiable variables is a pet interest of mine (and i thought everyone else had gone home).)
by benfunke on Jul 7, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
uh, what?
I fell asleep in the middle of the second sentence of your first post up there.
Fuck This Team. Period.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Jul 7, 2009 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Guy Really
Loves to use a lot of words to express some pretty simple ideas. Too long in academia, perhaps.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 7, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without wading through the Hayek quotes again to see where they apply and don't apply
tRA also includes xOuts and xIP to partly account for these things.
BsR-FIP also works by using Total Batters Faced as part of its equation.
I’m not saying there’s nothing to the “defense effects things by longer innings” argument, but you’ve merely “feigned a hypthesis,” as Newton said he refused to do in the General Scholium to the Principia (although, as it turned out, and pace Hayek, that in his physical science he did make reference to unobservable phenomena as he finally seems to resort to divine fiat as an explanation of the cause of gravitational force, etc.). You’d have to make more of an argument about this.
Again, FIP and tRA aren’t “absolute,” but generally they correlate better year-to-year, and I’ve also seen some studies where the FIP-ERA gap corraltes pretty well with team defense.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Jul 6, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe it's a driveline mechanics hypothesis to be tested
assuming it hasn’t already been studied for/against (then again, what hasn’t)
the WPA +/- of a pitch correlates inversely with the pitch count number of that pitch in the inning.
now that i think about it, this isn’t just a matter of accumulating some stats. it seems like a full analysis would be a fairly complicated regression with covariation and probably falls into non-linear territory (particularly since the last pitch is always going to add WPA unless the pitcher gets pulled).
by benfunke on Jul 7, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, Nick or Jeff at DM
or Harry at BrBS or one of the other Pitch f/x guys could do good stuff on this
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by devil_fingers on Jul 7, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those of us who got our hopes up in about mid-May
have seen them cruelly dashed against the rocks and ground into dust. We’re not going to compete this year. To have a chance at competing next year, drastic action must be taken.
Except for a core of CF DDJ, RF Teabag, 1B Butler, 2B Callaspo, and 3B Gordon, along with SP Greinke, SP Meche, and RP Soria, get rid of everything else on the roster starting now. OK, keep Banny and don’t give up on Davies and Hochevar, yet, should you prefer. If we can’t get anything for Guillen before the deadline, DFA him.
That means we need 1) a catcher 2) a shortstop 3) a left fielder 4) a DH 5) most likely one starter 6) a completely new bullpen. Kila can DH. One problem solved. That leaves us with about twelve more. Including the manager.
It's pronounced Poo-ZHOLS in Catalan.
by Juancho on Jul 6, 2009 5:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
(our hopes) have seen them cruelly dashed against the rocks and ground into dust.
this is the same every fricking year and what breeds my never ending cycle of cynicism, sarcasm, anger, complete frustration and inability to truly enjoy times of winning – because I always know it’s just around the corner. All the promises, the slick marketing, are going to come to naught and be exposed as lies, absolute lies, once again.
Fuck This Team. Period.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Jul 7, 2009 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















