Win-Loss Ceiling and Floor for the 2012 Royals
by Yodazilla on Nov 30, 2011 11:38 AM EST
Email
PrintWe've all discussed how good the Royals will be next year. We've discussed at length the pitching, and it seems Dayton Moore is almost purposefully defying our expectations, especially with the Broxton signing. But none of us really know how good they will be.
However, I am curious to see all of your ideas on the best and worst case scenarios. What if everything goes right? What if Duffy takes a huge step forward and pitches with a 3.50 ERA while Butler and Hosmer form this year's version of the Braun/Fielder combo? Of course there is the other side as well--what if Soria continues to regress, Montgomery gets demoted to AA, and Moose reverts to 2010 slump form while Aaron Crow becomes the new Kyle Davies?
These are the records of the Royals for the last 3 years;
2009: 65-97, .401
2010: 67-95, .414
2011: 71-91, .438
The Royals have improved upon their previous year's record every year since 2009. Will they continue and pass the 21st century record of 83-79 if everything goes right? And if everything goes wrong, how close to 62-100 will they get?
120 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Best Case: 162-0
Worst Case: Freedom isn’t free
by BeauJackson on Nov 30, 2011 11:45 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
“162-0” is not the best case scenario if the worst case is “Freedom isn’t free”
If “Freedom isn’t free” is the worst case scenario, the best case would be, “The Kansas City Royals organization solves the term limits issue.”
"You're like that guy who wrote that thing about remembering stuff!!"
- Crow T. Robot
the best case involves a utopian dream
the worst case involves visions of a totalitarian regime coming to power
it makes perfect sense!
We are at war with the Mariners
We have always been at war with the Mariners
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Dec 1, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I've Been Behind
Enemy lines since 1978; don't tell anyone
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 1, 2011 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
Looks like we're on an exponential plane
65 wins in year 0 (2009)
+2 wins in year 1(2010)
+ 4 more wins in year 2
So we’re gonna win 8 more next year: 79-83
And 16 more in 2013 : 95-67
I’d be happy with that, and despite my attempts to Fetteroff that, it might not be unrealistic
Exponential Curve maybe, but probably not.
So in 2014 the Royals will win 32 more games, then 64 more games in 2015 to finish 129-33. Then in 2016 the MLB decides we need to increase the total games played in a season so the Royals can keep this pattern alive forever.
Yeah, by "Fetteroff", I meant that I was extrapolating a formula from
a very small data set to fit my preconceived notion of what I thought might happen, and that such a formula would be ridiculous if applied beyond the point I was trying to make
Or maybe KC will get two teams in 2016, and one will go 129-33, and the other 128-34!!!!
Nice that his name is now a verb
“I’ve created the stat known as HOS, it takes the amount of home runs a player hits and multiplies it by the number corresponding to the moon phase that night…”
If everything goes right they can win 90+ games
If everything goes wrong they can probably lose 100
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
completely agree
because there is always the sluggers chance of landing a KO, the moves known and unknown pan out, the yutes come thru, etc….they could definitely compete for a division title. More likely, there will be some combination of regression, injuries, etc…and they win 70-80 games. But the longshot chance isn’t nearly as crazy assed crazy as it has been in the past. We’ve went from Lloyd Christmas “so you are saying I have chance” territory to Animal Kingdom winning the Kentucky Derby at 20-1 type odds territory. Last time I looked at a map, they are both on the same continent, but on different coasts. Still not great, but it certainly could happen. Usually BP runs a results article to show how the major projection systems fared regarding W/L etc….I assume the Royals packing an additional 15 wins over estimates wouldn’t be the biggest unforseen jump ever recorded.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Nov 30, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
Right
In the past, well we had a shot to win 90, but it would have taken perhaps the most unforeseen set of circumstances for it to happen (and yet, it almost did in 2003). But this year I think its unlikely, but it wouldn’t be completely shocking to see them win 90. It would take a lot of things to go right though.
I’d say Scott’s range is probably the more realistic probability range, but the odds of exceeding that probability is higher than its been in the past.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
“Any ya’ll heard of War Emblem?”
"You're like that guy who wrote that thing about remembering stuff!!"
- Crow T. Robot
War Emblem....hell yes, that's the rally cry
War Emblem, Giacomo, Thunder Gulch,
fight them, fight them, kick ‘em in the scroat
Longshots, Can Fest, that’s all she wrote
’YAYYAYAYYY!
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Dec 1, 2011 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
That's The Beauty
Of young players.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 1, 2011 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
purely guessing...
worst 5% – 65 – 97
bad 30% – 71 – 91
middle 30% – 76 – 86
good 30% – 83 – 79
best 5% – 90 – 72
so my EV = 77 – 85
The absolute floor and ceiling are very high and very low
But to narrow it down to something more reasonable and I think realistic, I’d say something like:
Realistic floor – 70
Realistic ceiling – 83
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:31 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Looks right to me
Obviously, this is subject to change as DM continues his wheeling and dealing.
Do you still feel that 78 wins is the number below which Dayton is on the hot seat?
If it’s about expectations, I think the recent moves have increased them, at least among the fanbase. As for David Glass, I guess we’ll have to wait for his annual “I’m tired of losing” profile in the Star to parse and scrutinize.
IMO, I see no hot seat for DM by David Glass.
The Glasses have got to be privately thrilled with DM: Low payroll, boost in attendance in 2012, great farm system and controlled draft and international spending. DM will decide how long he is the GM of the Royals.
Do you think that Glass doesn't care if the Royals ever see actual results in the win column?
…like winning seasons and contending? Or are you saying that he’s just not impatient for it yet?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
He may not have said it
But I will.
David Glass does not care whether the Royals win or not.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
Hmmm, possible, but I doubt it
I assume that would mean that what he really cares about is making a profit off the team. But professional sports teams, especially in a small market like KC, really aren’t good profit makers. Yes, you can make a profit off of them, and he has, but it’s not a big money maker. So I doubt he bought the team to just squeeze out some safe profit without really caring if the team won or not.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
I do think he cares about winning, because I do think he is a baseball fan at heart. Winning also keeps revenue coming in.
I think that if the “perception” is that the Royals are competitive, then DMs job is very secure and that he is a long way from the hot seat.
I just don't think that perception can be there if the Royals don't win at least 78 games this year
The Royals haven’t been competitive under Moore’s tenure and I don’t think anyone has the perception that they have been. But that’s been ok because he’s been rebuilding. But now that he’s called up a bunch of prospects, people will expect some kind of results, like being somewhat competitive and near .500ish.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
Good points; IMO, seventy something wins doesn't put DM on the hot seat this year.
I could see where three more years would. I’m optimistic that won’t happen.
I must disagree
Glass makes $10 million+ off the Royals every year. They are worth $250 million more than the price he arranged to buy them for. When his profit was threatened the first time, he finally made a GM change and was convinced to open up funds for scouting and amateur draft. When it happened the second time, he reduced payroll to $36 million. He lobbied against the downtown stadium because the plan called for some money out of his pocket.
Glass sees the Royals as a cash cow. There is really no evidence to suggest otherwise. Sure, we all wish and hope that he cares about a return to glory or even respectability just like we do, but it is a false hope.
I think the only thing that would threaten Dayton Moore’s job would be a serious attendance decrease.
I have looked for evidence that Glass thinks about something other than the bottom line, but have still not found anything substantial after all these years. Did you hear anything about Glass fighting against the cap or penalties on draft spending because it hurt our strategy for winning? No, he was all for it because it positively affects his bottom line. Fanfest for the fans? It may be pennies, but now it is pennies saved.
Keep drinking the Glass Kool aid if it makes you feel better. It’s not like we have a choice in owners, so it is more comforting to believe in the illusion that he cares. I would like to have that kind of faith, but 18 years of reality is blocking the church door.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
by KHAZAD on Nov 30, 2011 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I'm sorry but your position is essentially unsupported
And given the fact that he has been reinvesting something like 93% of revenues into the team doesn’t suggest that he’s merely trying to take profit. And for a billionaire, having a business which might be netting you $10M isn’t exactly a “cash cow.” It’s more of a boutique business. I don’t think there’s any good reason to believe Glass doesn’t care about winning, contending and pennants. Your “Glass Kool aid” and “faith” comments are particularly nonsensical condescension. You just sound like a cranky fan who expects the owner to spend more on the team than the team is bringing in. That’s very, very rare. The most you can realistically hope for is that the owner re-invests a very high percentage of revenues into the team, and Glass has done that.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
He has done it
for about 3 or 4 of the years he has owned the team. He has made a lot of profit the other years, including last year. There is every bit of evidence that this team could make a profit with an $85 million payroll and a competitive team. As far as I am concerned, a $36 million payroll is not trying.
There is at least 17 years of evidence and decision making supporting the fact that he cares more about the bottom line than winning. The only evidence to the contrary are his rare patented “I care, and this is unacceptable” speeches when attendance gets particularly low. I refer to these as “Groundhog Day” as he emerges from his hole to do it. If that makes me condescending and cranky, so be it. I would rather be that than gullible.
Being accused of condescension and crankiness by Scott Mckinney nearly approaches the delicious pot/kettle style irony of being previously being accused of hubris by him.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
Being accused of condescension and crankiness by Scott Mckinney nearly approaches the delicious pot/kettle style irony of being previously being accused of hubris by him.
Condescension about ME of all people drinking the Royals Kool Aid is laughable.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
The giant ME
seems a little bit like hubris.
Also, it was not Royal’s Kool aid, it was Glass Kool aid, which is an entirely different vintage.
I have been known to drink the Royals Kool aid on occasion, Glass Kool aid sickens me.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
I can understand blind fealty to the Royals. But why would anyone have blind fealty to the team’s owner? I’m not “drinking the Kool Aid.” There is no Glass Kool Aid. There’s just opinion about him. I can believe that he cares about winning and isn’t just using the team as a tiny source of profit for himself without having a cult-like adoration of the man.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 1, 2011 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
how is it different assuming
that glass might forego a little bit of extra profit b/c he enjoys winning than believing that chen might have turned down some extra money because he enjoys KC and enjoys having stability for the first time in his professional life?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 1, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
Because building a winner is the raison d’etre of a professional sports owner. They buy/own teams to have a winner, not to make a profit (usually). Why? Because professional sports teams usually aren’t big profit makers. This is triply true of small market MLB teams. So, wanting the team to win/contend and win pennants is the normal, natural thing that you’d expect from the owner of a professional sports team.
Playing for less money to stay on a losing team is not what you’d expect from a professional sports player.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 1, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
Really? How many leagues have seen record sale prices over the last few years?
Because professional sports teams usually aren’t big profit makers.
They’re huge profit makers when they sell.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
by Warden11 on Dec 1, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And for reference:
Glass bought the team for $96 million and they’re currently valued at $351 million.
That’d be a nice profit.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
by Warden11 on Dec 1, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If he's in it for the profit, and the real profit is in selling the team...
…then why isn’t he selling?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 1, 2011 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
That's a good question.
Maybe he wants it for the future of his family. Maybe he wants to let it continue to appreciate. Maybe he wants to be part of the All-Star weekend. Maybe he likes being a part of the owner’s club.
I’m just pointing the incorrect response about how it’s not profitable.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
I’m just pointing the incorrect response about how it’s not profitable.
First, I didn’t say it wasn’t profitable. I said there wasn’t much profit, or even much profit potential in a small market MLB baseball team. Yes there is profit to be had, but not very much. Second, the increased value of the asset does not equal profit. Not unless and until it is sold.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 1, 2011 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
How is 96 to 350 not "even much profit potential"?
or even much profit potential in a small market MLB baseball team.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
I was talking about the potential for annual profits
Revenues – expenses. Yes, there is profit potential in selling the asset. But not a whole lot unless and until he does that.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 2, 2011 12:45 AM EST up reply actions
b/c the price goes up signifcantly every single year
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 1, 2011 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
I just don’t think there’s any good reason to assume he’s just holding onto this team so that he can sell it for a big profit. I just don’t buy it. I think it is rare for people to buy professional sports teams as an investment, as opposed to an avocation. I think, again, that this is triply true of small market MLB teams.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 2, 2011 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
im on your side with regards to glass...
but to say there isnt immense profit potential is crazytalk…glass’ net worth has probably almost doubled since he bought the team…
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 4, 2011 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
More importantly
while the year-to-year returns aren’t that great in baseball ownership, the money is made when the team is sold for much more than it was purchased for. There is profit involved. It just doesn’t show up in the end-of-year statements.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Dec 4, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
Building a winner
would be your reason. It would be my reason. There are examples of other reasons in all the major sports. You are expecting him to think in the same manner that you do because it makes sense to you. I applaud the fact that winning is such a basic goal to you that you cannot even comprehend someone who does not care about it. I have just yet to see any evidence that it is even a secondary goal of David Glass.
Glass bought this team to make a profit. He set it up to buy at a cheap price. He put his wife and 3 children on the board of directors to further funnel salary money (that is profit before the profit, counted as part of the expenditures) into his family.
Is he Bill Gates? No. But $10 million here, $30 million there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money. It may be a boutique family business, but they made their entire initial investment back in 4 years and the rest has been gravy.
A boutique business, free and clear after 4 years, 8 figure profit every year, worth $350 million if you ever decide to sell. That’s enough money to provide motivation for almost anyone.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
Why is a billionaire bothering with such a low-revenue, low-profit business as the Kansas City Royals? If he’s looking to maximize profit, then why bother with something that’s only going to make you peanuts (especially if you don’t work to build a winner). Because there just isn’t much profit in a 70ish-win KC Royals team.
I don’t buy it. I also don’t vilify owners who spend a higher percentage of team revenues on the team than most MLB owners.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 1, 2011 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
He may be a Billionaire now
If so the Royals are the reason why. His net worth was $323 million when he bought the team. He now owns a team, free and clear, that is worth more by itself than everything he owned in the world 11 years ago, and adds an 8 figure income to what he owns in the world every single year.
Even if his net worth IS a billion dollars, averaging $20 million in actual cash profit from a business that increases in value every year (by an average rate of 12.5%), is a freaking cash cow. It is surely a damned good reason to buy a small market team at a cut rate.
He is in a market where people are just happy to have him. There is no pressure. The city responded to him cutting the organization to the bone by paying for a stadium renovation. He probably spends less actual time on the team than I spend getting ready for, and driving to and from my job. He is an absentee owner, who can barely be bothered to pay attention to how the team is doing, much less show up to games.
We will have to agree to disagree. I must think about more positive things.
This subject is destroying my Wa.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
It isn't publicly known how much Glass is worth
but I believe it’s generally agreed that he’s nowhere close to being a billionaire.
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 1, 2011 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
scotts world vs real world are different things
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 1, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
Boy, you've really gotten extra cranky recently
Holidays getting you down?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 2, 2011 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
nah...im good...
you talking about glass being a billionaire just goes against everything that is true…he’s one of if not the poorest owner in major league baseball
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 4, 2011 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, and do you believe that Glass is just in this for the profit and really isn’t interested in building a winner? Or do you just want to argue against me for fun? You’re seeming extra pointlessly spiteful.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 2, 2011 12:50 AM EST up reply actions
We can't read his mind
We don’t actually have proof either way. How we see this issue is how we look at the facts, which only indirectly tell us about his reasoning.
nah..im with you on glass
but he IS making a ton of money and has grown his investment like 400%…i expect him to make a profit. he’s spending right in line with most teams in baseball…thats all i expect
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 4, 2011 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Thing is
It is financially advantageous for the Royals to win. Saying he doesn’t care about winning is ignoring that fact.
Besides…we don’t know him and we don’t know what his desires and plans are, at the end of the day. There is not enough evidence to support the cash cow hypothesis or the idea that he actually cares about winning at all.
Yes, Glass doesn't make his finances public,
but general speculation is he is probably among the five poorest owners, so he is making more of a financial commitment than he is generally given credit for. Glass genuinely is a baseball fan by all accounts; though not a visible fanatic on the same level as, say, Paul Allen or Mark Cuban.
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 30, 2011 6:49 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know for sure. I know he attends on occasion.
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 30, 2011 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
No he is more on the line
with the guy at work who goes to opening day every year, full of excitement, but his interest afterwards is asking me “Hey, did the Royals play last night?” a dozen times or so per year.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
I don't think there is much evidence Glass cares about winning, and lots of evidence that he's more
concerned about making a buck. Especially during his early ownership days, when signing bonuses were capped for players at the back end of the draft, minor league teams didn’t have some basic equipment like batting cages, etc….things have certainly improved during GMDM’s time at the helm. I don’t know as much about the finances of the club as I should to opine with any certainty, but I believe that the information available points to Glass making a shit ton of money off the Royals. The increase in value of the club during his ownership has been ginormous.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Nov 30, 2011 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
…but they have batting cages now. i know; Cuthbert’s 2nd cousin told me.
"You're like that guy who wrote that thing about remembering stuff!!"
- Crow T. Robot
Do they use batting cages during games? No? Then why the hell would we use them in practice.
Thats how you run Wal Mart mofos. Same thing applies to chinese bluejeans and mandarin oranges. If it ain’t in the game, it ain’t real. And it ain’t need to be paid for.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Dec 1, 2011 9:36 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Just A Google
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/09/2789149/will-royals-owner-david-glass.html
But by baseball owner standards he is decidedly ordinary. He is a former Wal-Mart employee, not a Walton family member. Forbes lists 10 owners of baseball teams with a net worth of $1 billion or more, a group Glass isn’t in and likely doesn’t approach.
Glass’ net worth remains a closely guarded secret, but one baseball insider told The Star that it’s "definitely among the 10 lowest, and probably five," among baseball’s owners.
Glass has always maintained he only wants to avoid losing money in yearly operating costs.
"Most of the owners I know would like to break even," he says. "None of us … I don’t know any of the owners who bought their team and said, ‘This is a good investment.’ That’s not the motivation. You buy the team, or we did, because we love baseball. My family does, and we wanted to make sure the team stayed in Kansas City forever."
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 1, 2011 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
Don't you think that Glass is going to require actual results from the major league team sometime?
Do you think it will be multiple years from now? The reason to be happy about Moore building a great minor league system is because you think/want/hope they will eventually make for a good major league team. If that doesn’t happen (now that many of the prospects are up and more will be coming), don’t you think Glass will say ‘enough’?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 9:53 PM EST up reply actions
Yes eventually
And I think it will be multiple years from now because DM sold him on the future. I think DM has at least two years left, probably three, and even a winning season in the next three will probably earn him an extension.
The bar is pretty low here.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
I think a sub 70 win season will finish Dayton.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Me too.
I don’t think it’s likely but it’s definitely possible.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
If this season is a train wreck,
HOS (Forgive me Father) falls apart, Moose hits .200, Frenchy regresses horribly, no Gordon extension, and the entire rotation stays the way they’ve been we could lose 90+. I don’t think this is going to happen. I think we end up around .500, but if it’s bad things could get ugly for DM in a hurry.
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Dec 1, 2011 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I guess I'm still thinking something like 78
But I really don’t have my finger on the pulse of the fanbase, or really know what is in Glass’s head. So this is my least supported speculation.
I wonder if expectations have increased after the Sanchez trade and the Chen and Broxton signings. Sanchez isn’t much of a name. I guess Broxton is. And Chen is Chen, but more importantly, he isn’t an improvement, as he’s a re-signing. I guess I wouldn’t think these moves increased fan expectations, but they might have. I still think fans wouldn’t be pissed off at 78 or 79 wins.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
I think the shape of the season is meaningful
If the team is hovering around .500 through early August and within 7-10 games but fades down the stretch it will be more palatable for everyone. If they start poor and rally late to get to 78 wins then I don’t think it will sit as well.
by billexgordler on Nov 30, 2011 6:20 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think DM has sold him on the future
And the Glasses will at least give him a few years to see if the “greatest minor league system in the history of whatever” bears fruit. I don’t see him getting fired before 2014.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
A few years of these prospects actually being up with no results?
I can’t imagine that Glass will be that patient.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
Well what is "no results"?
If they’re losing 100 games in each of the next two years, then yea, he’s getting canned.
If the team generally does about what it has the last two years, he’s keeping his job.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
If the team generally does about what it has the last two years, he’s keeping his job.
So Moore has sold Glass on the future. Several pieces of the future arrived in 2011. More will arrive in 2012 and beyond. If that leads to more seasons of wins in the low-to-mid 70’s, which means essentially no improvement) and not even being close to contention, I’ve got to think Glass won’t be ok with that. I just can’t believe that once the prospects come up, Glass is still ok with success that is still in some nebulous future 3+ years in the future.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 1, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
I'd be damn happy with a .500 season.
I think we were waaaay too lucky with avoiding the injury bug last year. Our team doesn’t look so awesome if 1 or 2 of the middle of our order go down for the season.
MAJOR LEAGUE (The Royals)
Rachel Phelps (Royals Management): I think he'll fit right in with our team concept.
Charlie Donovan (Royals Fans): That reminds me, I was going to ask you. What exactly *is* our team concept?
There are too many teams out there that look REALLY good with 1 or 2 of the middle of the order guys down for the season.
Injuries happen, as the Chiefs have seen this year.
by royal_in_cincinnati on Dec 6, 2011 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
I am glass half-full for 2012.
I will not speculate on floor; ceiling is 90 wins and Central division champs. The starting pitching will be much better; +10 WAKD (wins above Kyle Davies; addition by subtraction). The bullpen will be nasty. Defense will be better with an injection of Lorenzocaine. Gordon, Hosmer, Moose, and Butler will anchor the offense. DM will add another SP before the trade deadline. 2012 will be 2003 without the September fade.
I am glass half-full for 2012.
Of course, you mean “Glass half full”.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 1, 2011 9:17 PM EST up reply actions
I would say
69-85. If I had to pick a # right now I guess I would say 77.
I have a different question. There are always positive and a few negative opinions on the site. Let’s make it interesting.
Scenario: You are forced to bet $1000 on the over/under number for the 2012 Royals. You could bet half on each and just lose the vig. You could bet all of it one way or the other. What is the highest number Vegas could come out with that would make you put all your money on the over? What is the lowest number that would cause you to put all your money on the under?
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
Me
A thousand bucks on 72 wins or less
A thousand bucks on 88 wins or greater
Midpoint of 80 wins, which sounds about right to me.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
Ceiling-84 Floor-67
Jon Broxton and Jeff Francoeur walk into a bar
by tiquanunderwear on Nov 30, 2011 5:41 PM EST reply actions
Ceiling: 86
Floor: 70
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 30, 2011 6:49 PM EST reply actions
one fucking thousand, vegas
or, rather, 75 wins, 82 wins
yeah. i miss the old-timey ragtime….
"You're like that guy who wrote that thing about remembering stuff!!"
- Crow T. Robot
Back in October I was chatting with a baseball friend
and he suggested 80-82 while opined a record of 75-87. And with the flurry of activity in the last couple of weeks, there hasn’t really been anything that has swayed my opinion on that. Sanchez is better than SOS et al. but really how much better? Paulino for a full year is better than Davies, etc., but what can you really expect? Does Duffy improve?
And there are still way too many unknowns regarding roster construction for me to feel good about giving a hard prediction. Who else will they sign? What happens with the Rasmus rumor?
So yeah. All that to say, a month and a half later, despite the moves I’m still on queue for 75-87.
We should trade for Vance Worley.
But if I had to give a range, low-end I'd say 70
Upper end of 85, for now.
We should trade for Vance Worley.
I like that.
They aren’t likely to be worse than this year’s team even if injuries strike, and they could be surprisingly good if certain things fall into place.
I could easily see them being worse if injuries strike.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
I could see them being far worse
depending upon the stricken
Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so.-Bertrand Russell
by Dr. van Strijcker on Dec 1, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
Floors can get pretty low when you account for worst-case injury scenarios
But the same can be said for any team. What happens to the Tigers if Verlander and Cabrera are out all year?
This team is actually pretty deep.
Even if Alex is injured and out for the year, remember he is only being counted as a three win player at best with regression. The Royals put in Mitch, a win and a half player. Net loss of a game or two. The Royals are the best bet to not be slammed by injuries in the division, and maybe in the best spot to absorb them. They are going to win at least 80 with neutral luck, and neutral luck for other teams favors the Royals to catch games on the rest of the division because the Royals have no stars right now. They are built for the marathon.
Go Royals!
Saw this yesterday
“Even if Dayton Moore stands pat from here, though, there’s reason for optimism in Kansas City. Pundits are often too quick to anoint young teams as super-sleepers, so let’s keep it modest: The Royals could crack .500 for just the second time in two decades. Give Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, Wil Myers, and the Royals’ other top prospects another couple of years to grow up, and things could get a lot more interesting.”
Jonah Keri
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7297568/american-league
unrealistic, but slightly possible ceiling.
but if all our guys reach their best case potential than this team is a playoff team without a doubt, maybe even 100+ wins. think about it…
IF
-Luke pitches like a 1st overall
-Sanchez’s walk rate subsides, his K rate doesn’t
-Duffy and/or Monty/Crowe bust out
-Chen continues to dominate the White Sox
-Perez’s offensive numbers in 2010 are for real
-Hosmer is the next Votto as many of us dream
-Gia learns some middle infield fundamentals
-Escobar gold gloves it and maybe even becomes a more consistent hitter
-Moose makes the most of his first full season
-Butler has a .400+ OBP
-Gordon is the best player in the AL Central…again
-Cain plays great d, halfway decent bat
-French Fry repeats his solid 2010
-Broxton and Soria were simply putting their talent on hiatus and are back to old form
-No Sophmore slump for Holland, Coleman and Crowe
-Timmy throws a strike
-No injuries
-Yost doesnt fuck it up
That right there is a championship season. .001% chance it happens, but thats the ceiling. The floor…everything we saw that we liked in 2010 was a mirage, and once again the Royals are the laughing stock of the league. I’d say 5% chance this happens, it is the Royals after all.
by YouDon'tPhaseMeGobble on Dec 1, 2011 3:59 PM EST reply actions
Not 100 wins.
Even if everything goes right I don’t think they’ll go much beyond 90 wins. Unless super weird things happen like Montgomery instantly becomes Randy Johnson and there becomes a legitimate four-way race between Billy, Moose, Hosmer, and Gordon to who can break the home run record.
My friend whose dad may or may not be in the Royals FO is a freaking genius when it comes to stats.
Let’s get that out of the way.
He developed his own projection system. He projected the Royals pythag to be at 90 wins based on projected Runs scored/runs allowed.
I’m just going to say that my ceiling for them is a sleeper division champ season, and my floor is about 75 wins.
A good comp for the 2012 Royals could be the 2002 Twins or the 2010 Padres.
The 2002 Twins had mediocre pitching and an okay lineup (aside from Torii Hunter), and a decent bullpen. The 2010 Padres had average pitching, a mediocre lineup (Aside from Adrian Gonzalez), and a freaking awesome bullpen. The 2012 Royals will most likely have mediocre pitching, an awesome lineup, and a well-above-average to awesome bullpen.
Will mediocre pitching, an awesome lineup, and a well-above-average to awesome bullpen get us somewhere? Maybe, but we’ll see.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
2012 is the year we shine.
Some of us also have to realize that it is harder for baseball players to get injuries, especially if properly prepared for the season.
I would say that our training staff has the ability to properly prepare the Royals for the 2012 season, and the ability to evaluate injuries.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
2012 is the year we shine.
I still don't think we have an awesome lineup
I don’t think Cain, Giavotella, Escobar, and Perez (Yes the savior) are gonna strike fear in the opposing pitchers hearts
Good game homie
by tiquanunderwear on Dec 1, 2011 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
you were 5 when the 2002 twins happened...my mind is blown
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 1, 2011 8:11 PM EST up reply actions
When I was five years old
we lived in Cincinnati, in 1970, when the Reds won the pennant. I was a little precocious and thought everything about the Reds was awesome. My dad got tickets for game two of the 1970 series against Baltimore. That was when a regular guy could just get in line and buy WS tickets at the advance sales booth.
So I was there when Robinson snagged Bench’s line drive and Carbo got called out at the plate when the catcher tagged him with his glove but without the ball in it. Unfortunately, my memories are a bit vague. Hell, I was five.
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
He developed his own projection system
Is his name Ron Polk?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Dec 1, 2011 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Nope.
He takes age peaks, pythags, and past stats and some other stuff and puts them into a complex player projection system similar to that of Bill James’s.
Ron Polk just thought it would be a good idea to use a stupid point system to boost the morale of shitty players.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
2012 is the year we shine.
I Think Polk
Really believes, which is more pathetic.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 1, 2011 11:30 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
