Possibly Positive Counter-Point: The Royals Can Be the Twins
by Will McDonald on Feb 24, 2010 2:26 PM EST
in News
71 comments
After writing on Sunday about the somewhat disappointing state of the Farm System under Dayton Moore, I had initially planned to write a followup post laying out my central concerns with the future of the Royals. As I worked on that, a counter-argument started forming in my mind.
Namely, there's no reason why the Royals can't be the Twins.
I kept coming back to the Twins because they share with the Royals a number of frustrating circumstances:
- Although the Twin Cities is not actually a "small market" the Twins have operated under stingy ownership and have typically been in the bottom third of the league in payroll. (Although in recent years this has changed a bit and they're currently projected to be around 14-15th for 2010.) If you were going to pick one ownership group that was most similar to what the Royals have, you'd probably pick Minnesota's.
- When it comes to player evaluation, strategy, etc. the Twins are a very traditional organization. They get an inordinate amount of praise for "doing things the right way" and while from this perspective this is both way over-stated (they were fundamentally horrible against the Yankees in the playoffs) and sometimes counter-productive, we can easily imagine the Royals of the next decade behaving the same way. Every year, it seems like the Twins are doing something with their roster that the analysts that I trust just think is preposterous. Remember this was the organization that produced a three year internet meme of "Freeing Johan Santana" and allowing him to start games. Although they've improved in this regard in the last three years or so, the mid-decade Twins were often their own worst enemy. I see the Royals, even if they got good, always being like that.
- The Twins have not been especially effective with valuing other people's talent. At the very best, they've broke even when it comes to free agent signings and trades. The Twins of the middle of this decade produced some free agent signings that were straight out of Dayton's greatest hits (Ruben Sierra, Sidney Ponson, the increasingly terrible Delmon Young trade). Even when they've been good, the minor moves the Twins make to round out the roster are often bizarre old options. This will be us someday!
Despite those limitations the Twins have produced elite talent (Mauer, partially Santana, Morneau) and an endless stream of generic but valuable position players and back of the rotation guys. Do you like junkballers with non-threatening names out of the 1950s? Allow me to introduce you to Kevin Slowey, Scott Baker, Nick Blackburn and Glen Perkins. Between 2002 and 2006 the Twins had a Top 10 System according to BA which has produced enough organizational depth to allow the Twins to compete in the Central. Actually, it was more like Top 5: over those years the Twins ranked 6-4-5-4-6.
Essentially, I think the absolute upside for the Royals under Dayton Moore is to become the Twins. Here's what the Twins have done since they've gotten good:
| Year | Record | Central Rank |
| 2001 | 85-77 | 2nd |
| 2002 | 94-67 | 1st |
| 2003 | 90-72 | 1st |
| 2004 | 92-70 | 1st |
| 2005 | 83-79 | 3rd |
| 2006 | 96-66 | 1st |
| 2007 | 79-83 | 3rd |
| 2008 | 88-74 | 2nd |
| 2009 | 86-76 | 1st |
(For 2008 and 2009 I listed their record through 162 games, although MLB considers the one-game playoff to be a regular season game.)
The line you often hear about the Twins is that "they'll always be there" and to some extent that has been true. That being said, since 2006 the Twins have been hindered by their limitations, only to be partially saved by virtue of the Central being lame. And although the '00s Twins started out with an upset victory over Oakland in the 2002 Playoffs, they've gone 3-16 in post-season play since (or 4-17, if you want to count the one game playoffs).
(The A's got absolutely murdered by the mainstream media for four straight playoff series, but those were all 5-game classics against extremely good Yankee and Red Sox teams.)
A part of me wants to consider the lack of post-season success just bad luck, while another believes its indicative of some larger limitation. Perhaps the scariest Twins team of the decade was the '06 squad, that one 96 games in a good Central (Detroit and CWS both won over 90 games) and played something like .700 ball over the last three months to win the division. And that team got swept out of the playoffs by... Oakland. The Twins have had some bad luck, or perhaps, they've never had really good luck in the playoffs. They've also usually been the third or fourth best AL team in the playoffs, which I think has been largely reflected in their 6-18 record. But they've been there a lot, which is really all that matters. I look at the Cardinals as the best example of this: probably their 5th best team of the decade was the one that ended up winning the World Series.
Trying to look ahead at the next five years is difficult. Here's a general impression: the Twins will be the Twins, the Indians will get better, Detroit and Chicago can go in multiple directions. The Royals have a long way to go, and when they get to that Twins level (if they do) it might not be good enough. It might. But it might not. The Twins have finished second quite a bit, after all.
So in sum, I think that this can be our upside: a really solid, mostly consistent, pretty good team. A team that will generate an inordinate amount of media praise. A team that will be taken to represent pure baseball virtue.
All that the Royals need to do is have a Top 5 farm system for half a decade. Get there, and they can win 80-90 games depending on how things shake out and how smart the rest of their decisions are.
1 recs |
71 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Just a short note
Scott Baker shredded hitters with his fastball last season, about +20 runs above average with it. He’s hardly a junkballer.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
I also always want to spell their names weird
one of them is either Scot (rather than Scott) or (Glenn rather than Glen)
right?
by Will McDonald on Feb 24, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
I think it's "Scott" and "Glen"
Slowey’s fastball is barely 90 MPH, and it was about average last season, but he kicked ass with it in 2008, and the throws it a lot. Almost 70% of the time. I expect he will be very good this season.
Blackburn’s not as good, I don’t think, although his fastball was also more effective in 2008… big cutter/groundball guy.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Feb 24, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
great movie
glad ol Travolta whoops him in the end.
Regardless of who the Chiefs pick at #5 overall, Whitlock will call it the worst pick in the history of the Chiefs. Heres to hoping that #5 pick runs Whitlock out of town.....
Hey maybe Wil Myers will be
the next Joe Mauer and Hosmer will become Morneau.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Two things that are keeping (will keep) the Royals from being the Twins
1. The Royals scouts just aren’t good enough.
2. The Twins had most of their success when Sabermetrics was still something that was merely being dabbled with by a handful of FO’s. Now it has become a significant part of the vast majority of FO’s and its influence and use is growing. In short, it has been and will continue to be increasingly difficult for even the Twins to be the Twins.
The immoderate moderator
only partially agree
1. It’s really hard to say that the Royals scouts aren’t as good as the Twins scouts with any confidence. All we really see is the results, and with something as fluky and chance-riddled as MLB prospects, there’s a LOT of noise drowning out the signal. If Moose and Hosmer have great seasons in 2010 and bounce back to the top 30 in the BA prospect list, we might be talking about how great the Royals scouting has been next year. There’s just too much random variance to lay a whole lot of blame or praise on the scouting department’s doorstep.
2. There is a point to be made that as other teams stride forward in the advantages they gain from statistics and mathematical modeling, the Royals will continue to fall farther behind if they fail to advance themselves. That said, I think it’s worth noting a couple caveats with this line of reasoning. (1) The Royals could conceivably improve in this regard as well. Moreover, if we accept that they’re currently far behind, they could stand to make up ground more quickly since they need only join the state of the art rather than push its bounds. And (2) the advantage gained by the sorts of statistical analysis that non-Royals teams do might be more impressive qualititativly than it is in terms of its magnitude. It might be the case that team X can do a slightly better job evaluating cost-effectiveness of contracts than the Royals do, and so manages a few million dollars per year around the edges on payroll for comparable production. It’s possible that the Royals would make up this competitive disadvantage by strategically allocating more money to the draft or international prospects, thus netting them 10’s of millions of dollars of savings in pre-arb and pre-free agency production relative to other teams. It’s not really as simple as that since all teams use statistics and all teams invest in prospects. The point is really that if you’re going to have a weakness, which the Royals seem to have in statistical analysis, then you’ll have to be damn good somewhere else if you want to catch up to and pass the rest of the pack.
. All we really see is the results, and with something as fluky and chance-riddled as MLB prospects, there’s a LOT of noise drowning out the signal
We don’t just have the prospects to look at. We have a lot of major league players to look at as well. The Royals scouts looked at guys like Guillen, Farnsworth, HoRam, etc. and liked what they saw. The Royals scouting department has done an awful job with regard to major league players.
The Royals could conceivably improve in this regard as well.
While that is certainly possible, I see no reason to believe this will happen. Dayton Moore has shown an unbelievable degree of ignorance with regard to statistics beyond batting average and RBI (he frequently talks about how important OBP is, but shows that he really doesn’t understand it or its true importance). The front office continues to have no statistical analysis department. Their moves consistently show a complete disregard for statistical analysis or any analytical advance since the 1980’s. When he uses RBI and runs scored to partially evaluate a player, he thinks he’s undertaking meaningful statistical analysis. Dayton Moore shows no interest in moving his front office into the 21st century.
And (2) the advantage gained by the sorts of statistical analysis that non-Royals teams do might be more impressive qualititativly than it is in terms of its magnitude. It might be the case that team X can do a slightly better job evaluating cost-effectiveness of contracts than the Royals do, and so manages a few million dollars per year around the edges on payroll for comparable production. It’s possible that the Royals would make up this competitive disadvantage by strategically allocating more money to the draft or international prospects, thus netting them 10’s of millions of dollars of savings in pre-arb and pre-free agency production relative to other teams.
It seems like what you’re saying is that the only real benefit that statistical analysis gives MLB is the ability to save a few million dollars here or there. You are selling sabermetrics and statistical analysis short. Sound analysis of player performance through their statistical record is an invaluable (and in my opinion essential) element in player evaluation. To put it most simply, front offices need to know how good their players are and how good other players are. That’s how you determine who you keep, who you extend, who you release, who you trade for and who you sign (in concert with other factors like tools-based evaluation). This is where the Royals are really lacking. And is why they keep flushing scarce resources down the drain on toolsy pieces of shit like Guillen and Farnsworth.
The point is really that if you’re going to have a weakness, which the Royals seem to have in statistical analysis, then you’ll have to be damn good somewhere else if you want to catch up to and pass the rest of the pack.
I kind of agree with that. And my problem with the idea that the Royals can become the Twins is that since the Royals ignore statistical analysis, in order to become the Twins, they are going to have to have outstanding scouting. And their scouting of MLB players shows that they don’t have that at this point.
I used to think that a MLB team could compete with great scouting, great analysis or a good combination of both. Now, I’m not so sure. Certainly, that used to be the case. The Atlanta Braves of the 1990’s had a tremendous amount of success with great scouting and essentially no advanced statistical analysis. But that worked then because there was very little advanced statistical analysis going on in MLB FO’s. But now almost every team is into sabermetrics. So can a team compete now with great scouting alone when other teams are utilizing both scouting and stats? I’m skeptical.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Feb 24, 2010 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think we essentially agree
I’m not at all convinced that Royals scouting is as bad as you seem to think it is. Guillen is the obvious and most significant failure. Farnsworth was vastly overpaid, and his signing was cerainly a mistep as well, though not quite of the same magnitude as Guillen. The HoRam’s and Ponson’s of the world will happen—you kind of have to accept that for every Tejeda, you’re gonna get a HoRam, and FWIW, HoRam Version 1.0 was actually good. So they’ve had some big strikeouts, but they’ve also hit a few home runs with Soria, Meche and Bannister. I’m inclined to think that the Royals scouting has done decently so far under Moore, but mostly, I feel like I don’t have enough information to have confidence in my evaluation of the scouting department. Their true ability could be great or awful—all I’ve seen so far are lukewarm results, and I don’t know how much data it would take for a conclusion to be statistically significant.
As far as the value of statistical analysis, ‘invaluable’ is not really an answer. If Team A is X much better than Team B in statistical analysis, that must correspond to some dollar or win advantage or teams and fans wouldn’t care about it. As for how many dollars of advantage the Royals are ceding to the Red Sox or Mariners, it’s tough for us to say. We don’t actually know what any of these teams are doing—we just have a general sense from the quotes we see in the paper. It could be on the order of 10’s of millions of dollars per year if the Red Sox really have figured out how to permanently avoid the Guillens of the world, but I’m guessing they’ll make their share of bad signings in the future too.
More to the point, however, I wasn’t trying to say that that statistical analysis hurts the Royals only a little and emphasis on developing prospects more than evens out their statistical deficiency. I was just noting that the advantages gained by any particular strategy have limits, and that it’s possible that, on balance, the Royals will still come out alright, even if they’re a step or two behind the times in some regards. They might not—well, they probably won’t. But they could. And in my opinion, their spending in the minor leagues is roughly as encouraging as their newspaper quotes about statistics are disheartening.
. I’m inclined to think that the Royals scouting has done decently so far under Moore,
This is kind of what I’m trying to say. The Royals scouting has been merely decent. And when you are trying to “be the Twins” and win through scouting while ignoring statistical analysis, decent isn’t half good enough. Your scouting has to be great. A ton of prospects would have to pan out to make me believe the Royals really have great scouting. While that is possible, I think it unlikely.
As far as the value of statistical analysis, ‘invaluable’ is not really an answer. If Team A is X much better than Team B in statistical analysis, that must correspond to some dollar or win advantage or teams and fans wouldn’t care about it. As for how many dollars of advantage the Royals are ceding to the Red Sox or Mariners, it’s tough for us to say. We don’t actually know what any of these teams are doing—we just have a general sense from the quotes we see in the paper. It could be on the order of 10’s of millions of dollars per year if the Red Sox really have figured out how to permanently avoid the Guillens of the world, but I’m guessing they’ll make their share of bad signings in the future too.
It’s really not clear what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that we really don’t know which organizations are using statistical analysis heavily and that we don’t know how much it helps? I’m sorry but that sounds like willful ignorance. Do we really not know that statistical analysis helped a very low budget A’s organization have multiple 90-win seasons, or that such analysis helped the Red Sox win the WS, or that it has helped the Rays compete with the two biggest budget teams in baseball? Please.
More to the point, however, I wasn’t trying to say that that statistical analysis hurts the Royals only a little
I don’t think you could be more wrong. Statistical analysis is a hugely important resource available to all MLB organizations. Completely ignoring that resource puts an organization at a massive disadvantage. The organizations who embrace it are moving forward. Those that do not are either moving backwards or staying in the doldrums of failure. Results speak volumes.
and emphasis on developing prospects more than evens out their statistical deficiency
No, it doesn’t. Every organization emphasizes developing prospects. Prospects have become the most valuable commodity in baseball over the last 10 years. What exactly can the Royals do that all or most other teams aren’t doing which can even out the disadvantage which comes from ignoring statistical analysis? Goving overslot in the draft? That certainly helps, but there’s no way that this alone makes up for completely ignoring a major resource for evaluating and valuing players.
. I was just noting that the advantages gained by any particular strategy have limits, and that it’s possible that, on balance, the Royals will still come out alright, even if they’re a step or two behind the times in some regards.
I think this wildly underestimate the problem. First, this isn’t a stats organizations vs. scouting organizations issue. Those aren’t the strategy choices here. The organizations that embrace sabermetrics utilize both scouting and stats heavily. That is the only strategy which makes any sense. The Royals focus on scouting and an antiquated notion of what makes a good player and a good team to the exclusion of any and all other modes of analysis. And the Royals aren’t just a step or two behind the times. The organization is stuck in the 1980’s with its focus on tools (even for players in the 30’s), strict position profiles, intangibles, small ball, and the slightest nod to the value of stats (and that including only things like batting average, RBI, ERA and an incomplete understanding of OBP).
In short, I think you understimate the value and importance of statistical analysis for evaluating talent and placing the proper dollar value on that talent, as well as embracing newer ideas of what makes a good player at various positions, what makes a good lineup and what makes a good team. Great advances have been made in all of these things since the 1980’s. Dayton Moore and his front office ignore them all. That’s a big problem.
The immoderate moderator
I think you misunderstood some of what I was saying
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough.
Royals scouting—fair enough. I think we agree that their performance so far has been merely okay, and that it needs to be great for the Royals to contend. My point here was that what we’re really interested in is the ‘true skill’ of the scouting department, and that the unpredictability and variance in performance of both prospects and MLB players provides a lot of noise that makes it somewhat difficult to read the underlying signal. Because there’s so much chance, it takes a lot of data to determine the ‘true skill’ of the scouting department. The results so far have been underwhelming, but we don’t know for sure that they aren’t actually better and haven’t just been somewhat unlucky with a few top picks. Conversely, they might actually be terrible and have outperformed their true skill to date. My point was that we don’t know for sure.
As for the middle part of your post, when I wrote, “More to the point, however, I wasn’t trying to say that statistical analysis hurts the Royals only a little and emphasis on developing prospects more than evens out their statistical deficiency,” I was clarifying that these ideas were NOT my intention. Emphasis on the “I wasn’t trying to say,” part of the sentence. Bash away at those positions—they aren’t mine.
As to your second to last paragraph, I don’t think our statements are actually at odds with each other. Yes, being great at stats and scouting would be better than being great at one and poor at the other. Some teams seem to manage to achieve just that. The Royals seem to be behind the times in statistical analysis, although I think the caricature of Moore being stuck in the 1980’s is probably exaggerated. We get quotes in newspapers, and we tend to pick out the parts that most fit our preconceptions. They may or may not accurately reflect reality. An article from Dutton particularly focusing on Moore’s position on statistical analysis would help clear things up.
In response to your last paragraph, I think you’ve completely mistaken my position. My point is simply that the benefits of statistical analysis are finite. Moreover, the Royals surely do some level of productive statistical analysis, so:
Benefits gained from statistical analysis(Mariners) – Benifits gained from statistical analysis(Royals) = finite amount.
It’s possible that the Royals could overcome this disadvantage by some other means. This seems like a clear matter of fact to me.
As to whether the Royals are likely to overcome their statistical disadvantage by excelling in other avenenues—I’m not bullish. On the other hand, drafting the next Pujols/Mauer would go a long way, and judging by their spending on amateur talent the last few years (I’d guess it’s in the top 5 in baseball), they seem to be buying as many lottery tickets as they can.
The Royals seem to be behind the times in statistical analysis, although I think the caricature of Moore being stuck in the 1980’s is probably exaggerated. We get quotes in newspapers, and we tend to pick out the parts that most fit our preconceptions. They may or may not accurately reflect reality.
I’ve read and heard a lot of direct quotes, indirect quotes and comments attributed to Dayton Moore. I have yet to read or hear anything that is inconsistent with 1980’s era baseball thinking (except for that which is even more antiquated than that). But I’m sure I haven’t read or heard all of his statements. I would genuinely love to hear anything from Dayton Moore which shows that he understands the importance of statistical analysis and that he is familiar with advanced analysis. If anyone can share any such quotes, I’d appreciate it. Unfortunately, everything from him is very old school, traditional. On a recent program about sabermetrics, he said that the stats he really likes are runs scored and RBI. This was a perfect forum for him to talk about stats and show the he knows about advanced stats or understands that this analysis is important. He didn’t do that. I don’t think he can. So far there is no evidence that he values modern statistical analysis. And there is a great deal of evidence that he does not.
It’s possible that the Royals could overcome this disadvantage by some other means. This seems like a clear matter of fact to me.
It is certainly possible. But anything is possible. It is possible that Jason Kendall will have the following stat line this season .350/.450/.550 with 40 HR and 140 RBI. While possible, that is highly unlikely. And I think I’ve described why it is unlikely that the Royals will overcome the huge disadvantage they’ve given themselves by ignoring the resource of statistical analysis.
The immoderate moderator
I have to go with NYR here
In his (NYR) inimitable words, Dayton Moore is absolutely and without question being “willfully ignorant” of advanced stats. I don’t think this can really be debated. He has plenty of disdainful and dismissive quotes on this area and his manager is right with him.
Air Cassel - approved for takeoff
Always in motion is the future.
-- Yoda
The Twins are surviving without it, and how about the Marlins?
Are you saying that we really don’t know which organizations are using statistical analysis heavily and that we don’t know how much it helps? I’m sorry but that sounds like willful ignorance. Do we really not know that statistical analysis helped a very low budget A’s organization have multiple 90-win seasons, or that such analysis helped the Red Sox win the WS, or that it has helped the Rays compete with the two biggest budget teams in baseball? Please.
Of course I’m not recommending a sabermetric-less approach, but there are at least two teams who have done just fine without it. Yes, it would be ignorant to not recognize the positive value of using statistical analysis, but just as ignorant to lose sight of the teams who have done well without it (at least when wondering if the Royals of the next 15 years can be the Twins of the last 15 years). The successes of these teams at least provide some perspective on the value of including a sabermetric approach.
Zapp Brannigan/Dayton Moore quote of the day: "[my most important sabermetric stats are] runs scored and runs driven in"
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 24, 2010 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
but there are at least two teams who have done just fine without it.
Are they doing just fine without it? Over the last 10 years, sabermetrics has developed from something that one or two FO’s engaged in to something that the vast majority of FO’s use in a significant way. As you can see from their records over the last ten years, win totals in the 90’s early in the decade have been replaced by win totals in 80’s later in the decade. As statistical analysis has become more commonplace, the rest of baseball is pulling away from the Twins, and it has been reflected in their record.
And can we really say that the Marlins have been doing just fine? How often do they contend for a division title? In this decade they have been often horrible and occasionally ok. That’s it. That’s what scouting and a small budget have gotten them.
The immoderate moderator
well, "just fine" is a relative term
but considering their low payrolls and no-stats handicap, i think “just fine” is apt — also relative to my idea of what a Royals fan would be willing to accept in these dismal days. now whether they can continue to field contenders as often as clunkers now that the sabermetrics landscape is developing remains to be seen.
and it’s good to have teams with their own approaches, including ones that don’t rely on stats, just for the opportunity to contrast and compare; I just wish we weren’t one of those lab rats in this experiment.
Zapp Brannigan/Dayton Moore quote of the day: "[my most important sabermetric stats are] runs scored and runs driven in"
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 24, 2010 9:10 PM EST up reply actions
One time I put together a spreadsheet that simulated grading of minor league systems.
The thing is, it was totally random.
I don’t remember the details, but I used some kind of probability distribution function. It was something like creating quintiles for “draft quality” for each year, then randomly assigning clubs to one of those quintiles.
I then created a “score” for each system, that was some kind of weighted average of the scores for the preceding four or five drafts – I think I gave full weight to the most recent three drafts, then knocked off half the score of fourth most recent and three-quarters of the score for the five-year old draft. The notion there is that three years would be the time within which players would percolate through the system, so a good draft would count for three years. After that it would begin losing weight.
So then I let it rip for about 100 years of data. I reloaded it about ten times just to see what the results would be.
Every time I ran the thing were always teams that would show long periods of success (say 10 to 15 years) when they were consistently near the top of the pack in draft effectiveness. Certainly long enough for a GM or scouting director to gain a reputation as drafting genius.
Conversely there were teams for whom mediocrity would have been significant improvement; more than enough time to fire two or three GMs, trying to find someone who could turn around the scouting department.
But it was all random. It was inevitable that there would be some teams that would have a ten or fifteen year period in which more often than not they placed average or higher in draft score, with a few years in the top ranking, and few, if any, years when they received a bottom score.
by Steve Nelson on Feb 24, 2010 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
BTW, when did "royalsreview" become "Will McDonald"?
Is this a personal branding effort? I see that as becoming more common in blogs (both SB Nation and elsewhere).
The immoderate moderator
The Twins will no longer be the Twins without first blocking the sky with a roof.
Similar to how the Royals stop being the Royals when they removed the Astroturf.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
agreed
I agree with NYroyal. The new sabermetrics and various advanced stats are absolutely crucial, especially for a team like kansas city that needs to make the most of their resources. And I for one don’t think the twins will be that much worse outdoors.. In this division, they’re clearly the favorites even if they don’t improve off of last year (which they should)
The new sabermetrics and various advanced stats are absolutely crucial, especially for a team like kansas city that needs to make the most of their resources
Yeah, it is particularly important for a cash-poor organization like the Royals to make the most out of less expensive resources. You can put together one of the best statistical analysis departments in baseball for less than $1M. That’s less than going over-slot on a 4th round draft pick. We’re talking about a low-cost, high-reward move and the Royals turn their nose up at it.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Feb 24, 2010 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
thats the irony, the core of sabermetrics, when you get down to at the club level is “saving cash”
and the royals just aren’t interested
by Will McDonald on Feb 24, 2010 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
that's a totally unfair caricature
didn’t you see that Dayton Moore was on GM Corner with respected stathead GM Jim Bowden? He’s totally into Runs Created!
I’m tired of all the unfair criticism of Dayton Moore on this site.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Feb 24, 2010 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think it's a reference to to Dayton's appearance on Bowden's "show"
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Feb 24, 2010 7:49 PM EST up reply actions
it is fair criticism of DM
just go back and read all of his quotes – he scorns it quite openly as far as I can tell
Air Cassel - approved for takeoff
Always in motion is the future.
-- Yoda
sorry
I just realized the real identity of Mr Klaassen and now my sarcasm detector has been recalibrated!
Air Cassel - approved for takeoff
Always in motion is the future.
-- Yoda
No, he's deadly serious
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Feb 27, 2010 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
Hahahahahaha
This cracked me up.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball. I’ll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.
To ever be the Twins (or Marlins)
the Royals would have to do two additional things to which this front office has shown extreme reluctance.
1. Trade expensive veterans for younger cheaper players.
2. Play the younger cheaper players instead of signing more expensive veterans.
by Gopherballs on Feb 24, 2010 7:14 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
From the perspective of a Twins fan, one difference is in risk taken in free agent signings
The Twins make a lot of inexplicable free agent signings, true. But it’s rare that those signings cost the Twins a lot in terms of dollars or years. In your example, both Ruben Sierra and Sidney Ponson were signed to minor league contracts. If your team doesn’t have a big salary, that makes it a lot easier to bounce back from mistake signings. No Jose Guillen or Kyle Farnsworth type signings for the Twins. Even a Kendall type of signing is rare – I wouldn’t put it past the Twins to sign a “veteran presence,” but it’s usually only for one year. There are of course exceptions – one would be Mike Lamb (signed in 2008, 2 yr / 6.6 million, DFA’d in 2008).
The Twins tend to only sign their franchise players to big contracts – Morneau, Mauer, Nathan, and Cuddyer at the moment. The Twins only rarely sign free agents to expensive contracts or multi-year contracts. And among their bigger contracts, even though Nathan and Cuddyer are arguably overpaid, they still have a lot of value to the organization as faces of the franchise. The Royals also did this in extending Greinke, but their other more expensive contracts were free agent signings – Meche and Guillen
I agree with you on the trades though – the Delmon Young trade is still looking terrible, and there are a lot of inexplicable small trades that the Twins make. Trading approaches still seem similar between the Twins and Royals.
Anyway, that’s just my point of view as a Twins fan. I admit I am not all that familiar with the Royals’ transactions earlier than the last few years, so if I am wrong about this, please correct me. I’m not trying to put down the Royals or boost the Twins – I know sometimes visiting fans from other teams can come off that way. I just thought it was interesting comparing the similar approaches, yet different results, of the Twins and the Royals. I enjoy Royals Review, keep up the good work!
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Feb 24, 2010 7:48 PM EST reply actions
the Delmon trade is like the AJ trade, except with the twins on the losing side
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Feb 24, 2010 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
What are you talking about?
Eduardo Morlan was a total bust.
it's small, low-risk signings that we aspire to
you’re certainly not putting down the Royals, they do it to themselves
Zapp Brannigan/Dayton Moore quote of the day: "[my most important sabermetric stats are] runs scored and runs driven in"
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 24, 2010 9:12 PM EST up reply actions
One late thought about the Twins' BA rankings
Between 2002 and 2006 the Twins had a Top 10 System according to BA which has produced enough organizational depth to allow the Twins to compete in the Central. Actually, it was more like Top 5: over those years the Twins ranked 6-4-5-4-6.
For four of those five years, the Twins had Joe Mauer as the 1st (twice), 4th, and 7th ranked prospect. Morneau, Cuddyer, and Kubel also make multiple appearances, but so do Mike Restovich, JD Durbin, and Matt Moses.
you guys are forgetting something about the Twins
The Metrodome!
Now that the dome is gone, what’s going to happen with that team?
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
they'll have a lot more money
not that that means the taxpayers shouldn’t be pitching in every chance they get, though!
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Feb 24, 2010 10:06 PM EST up reply actions
is anyone else amazed by how bad the twins have gotten beaten in the playoffs?
seriously they start 3-2 over oakland, then win 3 games total in their next 5 series
that makes me a sad panda
Also sad – the Twins went 0-10 against the Yankees in 2009…
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Feb 24, 2010 10:53 PM EST up reply actions
Bill Smith's sh-t doesn't work in the playoffs
and by “shi-t” I mean Brendan Harris and Delmon Young
No, I didn’t look up any stats. COmmence showing how baseless this comment is.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Feb 24, 2010 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
at least the made the playoffs...
we couldn’t even the playoff umpires farts in the was gale blowing. How many years has it been since we had a realistic shot of being in contention for October games?
"we couldn’t even the playoff umpires farts in the was gale blowing"
pretty sure this is a line from Ulysses
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Feb 25, 2010 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
baseball america's top 100 prospects
39 Mike Montgomery, lhp, Royals
40 Aaron Crow, rhp, Royals
100 Noel Arguelles, lhp, Royals
3 Royals on the list, so there is a future. could be as good as th etwins
by Rickfansince76 on Feb 25, 2010 12:47 AM EST reply actions
Why would you strive to be like the Twinkies?
2001
Missed playoffs
2002 ALCS Loss, 4-1
2003 ALCS Loss, 3-1
2004 ALCS Loss, 3-1
2005Missed playoffs
2006 ALCS Loss, 3-0
2007Missed playoffs
2008Missed playoffs
2009 ALCS Loss, 3-0
2001-09 Playoff Record: 3-16, 0-5 in ALCS, 0 World Series Appearances
The goal for every team is to win the World Series, right?
Want to compare that to the Royals in the same time frame?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball. I’ll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.
Interesting question
Is rooting for a “good but not good enough” team just as frustrating as rooting for “a bad and always shooting for worse” team? At least we have the warmth of our biting sarcasm to comfort us.
Best comparison I can think of: the 2000’s Twins are the 1990’s Kansas City Chiefs. As a Chiefs fan, it was fun during the regular seasons, but the seasons still always ended with bitter disappointment. Is that better than being a fan of a loser? Certainly, but how much better?
That seems like a more appropriate name.
by CentralChamps20?? on Feb 25, 2010 11:25 AM EST up reply actions
The Royals make me
feel like a girl with a severely oscillating hormonal problem that keeps forgetting to take her Celexa pills. I finally got really excited about them again 3 years ago or so when DM “rode to our rescue”. But, now I’ve fallen back into despair and don’t think anything good is going to happen until Glass is dead – and maybe not then if he just gives them to his family.
At this point, I’d rather they have a different owner even if it meant they move to Vegas and change their name to The Strips and Chips.
Air Cassel - approved for takeoff
Always in motion is the future.
-- Yoda
it wasn't that KC fans' GOAL is to be the Twins
it’s that, given the current circumstances, the team could be a lot like the Twins, which is actually not bad, especially compared to what we’ve seen in the past decade.
Zapp Brannigan/Dayton Moore quote of the day: "[my most important sabermetric stats are] runs scored and runs driven in"
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 25, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
i hate the twins with every ounce of my life
maybe not every ounce since they are moving out of the shit dome. but close.
baseball rules.
Even Back To
The A’s, the Twinkies have been the closest to a true rivalry for KC baseball.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Feb 25, 2010 3:15 AM EST up reply actions
how soon we forget
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Feb 25, 2010 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
I've always kind of liked the Twins
I’d much rather see them win than the White Sox or the Yankees, teams I just flat out dislike. I have nothing in particular against Cleveland or Detroit, but I hates me some White Sox.
It's pronounced Poo-ZHOLS in Catalan.
by Juancho on Feb 25, 2010 6:43 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
It would take the Royals until midcentury to be as good as
the Twins year in and year out. I seriously doubt even then could we achieve that. The Twinkies may have a cheap owner but they do have a FO that has been in place for several decades and a longevity at manager that stretches back to the 80’s. You have to have this “process” in place to be a successful as that franchise has been. For example, a couple of seasons ago due to a rash of injuries the Twins had to bring up four young starting pitchers from their AAA club. Just the fact that they had four pitchers in their AAA club that they felt could pitch in the big leagues is a far cry from the Royals. They are a team that I love the Royals to beat that still doesn’t mean that our organization is anywhere close to theirs in performance, depth, and scouting ability.
And I heard they were really high on
pitchers John Smith, Matt Jones, and Mike Johnson in the next draft.
That seems like a more appropriate name.
by CentralChamps20?? on Feb 25, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
you ever notice how many J names are on the Twins roster?
Joe Mauer
Justin Morneau
Jason Kubel
Joe Nathan
Jose Mijares
Jose Morales
Jon Rauch
Jim Thome
Jesse Crain
Jeff Manship
JJ Hardy (bonus points for the double J)
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Feb 25, 2010 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
J is the new market inefficiency
Air Cassel - approved for takeoff
Always in motion is the future.
-- Yoda
No, that's aging hobos
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Feb 27, 2010 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
Related FanShots on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
