About Last Night('s Lineup)...

by JKWard on Sep 27, 2011 3:18 PM EDT

Lost in the meandering September malaise that surrounds seemingly every Royals season since the Clinton presidency is perhaps the best stretch of baseball they have played all year. "But even this, in itself, is nothing new" you might say, while twirling a clutch of brandy and hoisting a fine cigar to your face. After all, they did go 15-13 in September in 2009 (and 0-3 in October, for a "last month" record of 15-16). And the year before that, they went 18-8 in September (after going 7-20 in August). And you may be right, Baron of the September Swoon. But, consider the following:

The Royals are 15-8 this September. If they win the last two games, it will be the first time they have won twice as many games in a month since that 18-8 September three years ago. The last time before that? 2003, when they went 16-7 in April.
The Royals run differential is astounding. In September 2008, they were +37 through 26 games. This season, they are +33 in only 23 games(with two games left).
In 2008, the Royals scored 7 runs or more seven times in the last month of the season. This year: ten times, including five times of ten or more.

If you are wondering by now why I keep comparing this year's final month to the halcyon days of 2008, there are three main reasons:

1) It was the last time the Royals were productive and winning. Between the end of September '08 and through the end of August 2011, the Royals are 188-273.

2) 2008 is kind of the year that spawned the whole "Royals are good in September" mindset. Going 18-8 in a month will do that. It was also the first time since 2000 when the Royals were playing well at the end of the season (in '00, they went 15-14 in August, 14-14 in September, and 1-0 in October). The argument doesn't hold much water, though. They were 15-16 in their last 31 games in '09 and 11-19 in 2010. So, this will be their second successful last month to a season in the last decade. Progress.

3) Last but definitely not the lesser, nor even the least, is who the Royals have been getting their production from.

This didn't really dawn on me until I woke up and looked at the box score this morning. The difference between the "talent" on the 2008 roster and the talent that exists on this year's roster is staggering. Quick question: Without looking, how many homegrown players appeared in the Royals game last night? To give you some time, take a look at the lineup that was trotted out three years ago, on September 27th, 2008 to face the wily Minnesota Senators:

Lineup	Pos.
Mike Aviles	SS-2B
Alberto Callaspo	2B
--Joey Gathright	CF
Jose Guillen	RF
--Tony Pena	SS
Ryan Shealy	1B
Mark Teahen	LF
Billy Butler	DH
Alex Gordon	3B
MITCH Maier	CF-RF

Pitching
Gil Meche
John Bale
Ramon Ramirez
Joakim Soria

(Of the 14 players who appeared for the Royals in 2008, only 4 were homegrown (Butler, Gordon, MITCH, and Aviles)

The answer to today's trivia question is: 9. Of the 14 players who appeared in last night's game, 9 of them have been in the Royals system for their entire professional career. Only Paulino, Cabrera, Escobar, Cain, and Collins were not drafted or signed by the Royals and only Paulino, Cabrera, Cain and Escobar have appeared in a game for a team other than the Royals. Missing from the list above is Alex Gordon, who has been a revelation this season, and is another homegrown player.

All this to say that, as much as we moan and groan about "The Process", or Dayton Moore's wherewithal to competently perform the duties of a general manager, the Royals organization as a whole have been moving and building towards something, and the early indicators are that it will be something very special. I don't mean to sound as some sort of GMDM apologist, but a lot of what you are seeing on the field in the last month is a result of what he has put together in the last five years. He has made mistakes. There have been bad trades, poor evaluations, and player signings that confound all five senses. But, he has also put together a roster brimming with organizational talent. The starting pitching remains as an endless array of question marks for next year, but the everyday lineup has come together quite well. Something that you haven't been able to say in over a decade is that for the better part of the last month the Royals have fielded an everyday lineup consisting of good, quality, homegrown players. A lot of conversation is given to the Dye-Beltran-Damon-Sweeney era, but there may be a time ten or twelve years down the road when we reflect on the Gordon-Hosmer-Moustakas-Butler era as perhaps the greatest lineup the Royals have fielded in the last thirty-five years.

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

nice post...

by Freneau on Sep 27, 2011 11:54 PM EDT reply actions

this may already be one of the best royal lineups of the last thirty years...

Gordon, Melky an dFrenchy may not be part of the longterm future, but they had huge seasons

the royals are at 4.54 runs per game, good for sixth in the AL

we havent been in that range in years

by Freneau on Sep 27, 2011 11:56 PM EDT reply actions

Hope its sustainable

Surely Frenchy and Melky will regress, but you hope that improvement from Hos and Moose and no more black holes at 2B and C and maybe even SS will make up for that.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 28, 2011 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Melky And Frogger

For all their glaring deficiencies, have been above average to good this season. They are not the problem currently. I fear they may be going forward. Gordon is another story.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Sep 28, 2011 12:26 AM EDT reply actions

Really?

All this to say that, as much as we moan and groan about “The Process”, or Dayton Moore’s wherewithal to competently perform the duties of a general manager, the Royals organization as a whole have been moving and building towards something, and the early indicators are that it will be something very special.

The early indicators are that what Moore has been building will end up being something very special at the major league level? Which early indicators are that? A good September? Hosmer’s good rookie season? Is there more than that? I mean really. Is there good reason to believe that this organization is destined to give rise to a major league team which is “something very special?”

It seems to me that there are still a lot of question marks, and I’m not just talking about starting pitching. Moustakas has had a very good September, and also a few very horrible months. Is he going to be a decent or even good MLB player? That’s still very much up in the air. How good is Perez? Who knows? Is Giavotella a major league player? Going forward, is Escobar’s defense going to be enough to make up for his spectacularly bad hitting? How much worse than their 2011 performance will Melky and Francoeur be going forward? When Melky and Francoeur are gone (which might not be too long from now), who will replace them and will they be any good in the majors?

Now the answers to some of these questions are going to end up being very positive. Some will end up being negative. I think it is hard to answer any of those questions with confidence right now. Given those large uncertainties, mixed with the big holes and question marks in the rotation, I’m not ready to jump on the “this is going to be something very special” train yet.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 28, 2011 12:38 AM EDT reply actions

The early indicators are that what Moore has been building will end up being something very special at the major league level? Which early indicators are that? A good September? Hosmer’s good rookie season? Is there more than that? I mean really. Is there good reason to believe that this organization is destined to give rise to a major league team which is "something very special?"

To answer outright, yes, the early indicators are just that: early indicators. But it really isn’t just about this September, it’s about what the organization has done over the last four or five years. Hosmer has had a good season, yes, but is and has been widely-regarded as one of the best prospects the last several years. So no, I don’t think it is necessarily based on just this season, but his success throughout his career, which has manifested itself in the majors this season. Moustakas has hit well for about three weeks, and yes, you are correct, he had a miserable month and a half. Is that itself a good indicator? No, but when you consider it against his minor league track record, what the scouting reports say, and the fact that he has clearly been able to make an adjustment at the major league level (and slow starts have kind of been his modus operandi), yes, I say that is a good early indicator.

Aaron Crow, Louis Coleman, and Greg Holland have pitched over 181 innings with a sub-2.50 ERA this year. Will they maintain that? Probably not, nor should we expect all three of them to be that good every single year. But, it is something they are at least capable of doing, and is an early indicator that they can be successful in the majors.

No, I don’t know how good Perez is going to be, but in 151 PA’s he has done something that a lot of people assumed Kila Ka’aihue could do, but never did. Put as much stock as you want into that; personally, I don’t put very much, but I’m sure it is more than some.

And in regard to your other questions, no, it is not just about this September, or what is going on at the major league level either. There is still a lot to like about the minors, and how it may come into play over the next several years. From Myers to Cuthbert to Odorizzi and Hernandez, it is all building towards something.

So yes, I do believe something special is on its way for this organization. There are too many things that have gone well and are going well to believe that something special is a lot closer to probable than it is to impossible. Good reason? Maybe not. For everything I can point to as a positive, a hope, or a bright spot, Scott, we can also point out a flaw, an unknown, or a flat negative. I am trying to be as scientific about this as I can, by looking at accumulated data and giving an opinion based on findings. Are there holes on this team? Yes. I said so myself, focused particularly at starting pitching. But holes and wounds are two different things, and while the Royals still have enough of the former, they are cumulatively stitching up the latter.

At least, that’s what the early indicators say.

We should trade for Vance Worley.

by JKWard on Sep 28, 2011 3:33 AM EDT up reply actions

Maybe you're a premium mlb.tv subscriber and watch the Royals broadcast every game

But those of us who watch the opposing team broadcasts half the team hear opposing announcers, particularly those from rival AL Central clubs, spend an inordinate amount of time gushing about the Royals young core. There’s no guarantee, but the cheap young talent on this team is impressive.

by kcdc1 on Sep 28, 2011 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions

I watch on MLB Extra Innings

So I get to (or have to) hear the broadcast team from the Royals opponent a lot. And FWIW, I think the opinion of sports broadcasters is probably the least valuable information in existence. This goes double for Ken “Hawk” Harrelson. Unfortunately, we still don’t know how good these guys are going to be. I’m confident that there are enough good young relievers that the bullpen will be at least pretty good going forward. Even with regression and failures, there will be arms to slot in there. I really don’t know what to say about the cheap young SP talent. Hard to say how many will pan out. History says it will be a small percentage. With regard to the position players, well, I described that above. There are still a lot of question marks.

Also, I remember broadcasters from other teams gushing about the Royals young core at other periods as well, notably in the Damon-Beltran-Sweeney-Dye era. I can hear Hawk saying, “With these guys, this team’s gonna be a real doggone good one real soon. Woo boy!”

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 28, 2011 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions

I've thought about that team a lot

I think in the right hands, with a right amount of resources, that would have been a real doggone good team. I mean, you have Dye, Damon, Beltran, AND Sweeney – four legit All-Stars, not to mention Randa, and later Ibanez, and some other nice role players mixed in. Just absolutely no pitching. I guess that’s Dayton’s biggest obstacle too and he’ll have to prove he’s the right guy.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 28, 2011 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions

I guess that’s Dayton’s biggest obstacle too and he’ll have to prove he’s the right guy.

Yup. I think in the right hands with the right resources, this organization’s talent could certainly give rise to a doggone good MLB team. I hope Moore has the right hands, and plus hands, and plus hands.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 28, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions

That's what I'm worried about -- this team only has two legit All-Stars

you know, Soria and Crow

so, so valuable

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.

by Matt Klaassen on Sep 28, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m not saying that the broadcasters opinions mean a whole lot, but they don’t gush like this for everyone. The talent KC has is hard to miss, and people that don’t follow the team are taking notice.

by kcdc1 on Sep 28, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Depends on the sports announcer

I would pay a lot of attention to something Denny Matthews or Paul Splittorff said. Ryan Lefevbre, maybe not so much. Kevin Harlan used to get overly excited a lot. Max Falkenstein was like 87 years old and kept talking about guys who played at Iowa State in the ’50s.

"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."

by Juancho on Sep 29, 2011 6:26 AM EDT up reply actions

Early indicators =

One of the top ranked farm systems shuttling guys into MLB, and most of those players not falling flat on their face. Sure there are a lot of question marks, but any young team will have question marks. Right now the early indications are pretty good. I don’t see how anyone can deny that.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 28, 2011 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions

One of the top ranked farm systems shuttling guys into MLB, and most of those players not falling flat on their face

Many of the early indications are pretty good, as you say. I think that’s different from saying " the early indicators are that it will be something very special." That’s saying that early indicators show that the end product is going to be a very special team. I think it is too early to say that with any degree of confidence. It could happen.

The relievers have, for the most part, been very good. And that counts for something, but let’s look at the more substantial contributors (starting position players and SP’s) that this farm system has shuttled to KC. Hosmer has looked good. Duffy has fallen on his face. Moustakas has fallen on his face. Giavotella has fallen on his face. Perez has looked good (in the earliest of possible early indicators). I’m not saying these guys suck or that they are busts, but we are talking about the early indications from these players, right? Are we hanging our hats on the “this is going to be something special” hook based on Hosmer, 38 games of Perez and a good bullpen?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 28, 2011 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Hosmer has looked good.
Yes. I’d have used a ‘very’ in that sentence, but reasonable minds may differ.

Duffy has fallen on his face.
Not really. His 2011 SIERA was 4.31, a little less than half a point over the league average. Not great, but not bad. With as nasty as his stuff looks, I have to assume that the .330 BABIP is just bad luck.

Moustakas has fallen on his face.
Disagree on Moose. Even with that historic slump, his overall numbers are in the non-awful territory. He’s on about a 1 WAR pace over a full season. Bonus points for making adjustments and overcoming a slump.

Giavotella has fallen on his face.
Sort of. 183 PA’s. I’m less concerned with the bat than the glove.

Perez has looked good (in the earliest of possible early indicators).
Yes.

by kcdc1 on Sep 28, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Ugh. Formatting went to hell. You get the point.

by kcdc1 on Sep 28, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Not really. His 2011 SIERA was 4.31, a little less than half a point over the league average. Not great, but not bad.

I would argue against looking soley or primarily at SIERA to judge talent or project performance. SIERA is an ERA estimator, not necessarily a talent estimator. As ERA doesn’t show talent very well, something that predicts ERA also doesn’t do a particuarly good job showing talent or predicting performance (beyond ERA). I think the evaluation of a pitcher should include but not be limite3d to SIERA

SIERA 4.31
FIP 4.82 (17% below average)
xFIP 4.53 (12% below average)
tERA 5.40

I think the total picture of his performance there is pretty bad. I like the talent though. But again, we’re looking at early indicators of performance.

Disagree on Moose. Even with that historic slump, his overall numbers are in the non-awful territory.

.260/.306/.358 (.295 wOBA, 80 wRC+)

That’s hitting 20% worse than league average. If he were a SS or a catcher with great defense, that would be ok. As a third baseman, that’s genuinely awful hitting. And the defense has been merely ok. Yes, he’s on pace for 1 WAR over a full season. That’s genuinely bad for a full-time player.

Giavotella has fallen on his face.
Sort of. 183 PA’s. I’m less concerned with the bat than the glove.

Sort of? Granted it is a small sample size, but this exercise is all about “how do the early indicators look?” So far, he’s been awful, both at the plate and in the field. Is there any way that he hasn’t performed truly awful so far in the majors? And the reason I’m concerned about the bat is that just because a player hits well in the minors doesn’t mean he’ll hit well in the majors. Kila is but one example among many. Lots of guys can rake throughout the minors and hit a wall in the majors. So far he hasn’t given us reason to believe he’s one of those players whose bat can make the jump.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 28, 2011 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I’ll concede on the Moose and Gia arguments. I don’t think we’re far apart on them. It’s just semantics about how bad is mostly bad with some flashes of potential.

As for Duffy, this really comes down to a discussion about which ERA tool we like best. You like to mention that SIERA is an ERA estimator and not a talent estimator, but I’m not really sure what you mean by that. Each of the stats you cited are also ERA estimators. Going down the list, here’s what they do:

FIP: Counts K, BB, HR

xFIP: Counts K, BB, groundball rate, flyball rate, and calculates BABIP and HR rate from those values based on league averages for those batted ball types

SIERA: Mostly the same as xFIP, but based on historic trends, gives pitchers with high K rates or high GB rates a BABIP discount, and gives pitchers with high FB rates a HR/FB discount

tERA: don’t know, never use it

I like SIERA better than xFIP because it gives incorporates statistically significant trends about pitchers’ characteristics. It also tends to be marginally better than xFIP at identifying true talent levels.

SIERA is kinder to Duffy than xFIP is because he’s a high strikeout, flyball pitcher, and this is exactly the type of pitcher that xFIP tends to underestimate. See Jered Weaver.

by kcdc1 on Sep 28, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Each of the stats you cited are also ERA estimators.

Perhaps I should have said ERA predictor. While FIP, xFIP and tERA are all scaled to ERA, their purpose is not to predict future ERA. They are all metrics designed to isolate the pitcher’s true performance and/or talent. SIERA is specifically about predicting ERA. It predicts ERA better than all of the other metrics. The other metrics aren’t about predicting future ERA’s. Here is a great discussion at Tango’s blog involving many of the best sabermetricians in the industry. It involves Matt Schwartz describing and defending SIERA against many who are questioning and criticizing it:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/siera_updated/

While I can understand liking some of SIERA’s elements, one really shouldn’t rely just on that metric. It utilizes batted ball data, like LD% (as tERA does) but there is still a great deal of debate about whether and to what degree LD’s are in the pitcher’s control. So relying on metrics that include that batted ball data, and not using other metrics as well is potentially problematic. Long story short, I really think in the very least, when evaluating a pitcher’s stats, you should use a variety of the best advanced metrics. Relying on SIERA alone (or any of them alone) is a big mistake. SIERA tells you something, but so do the others, and they don’t all tell you the same thing.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 28, 2011 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I'd also go out on a limb and say

that if a starting pitcher is going to walk more than four per nine, he’d better be striking out at least nine over the same period. SIERA has its uses, but the idea that Duffy has been anything better than “not completely crappy” is, well, interesting.

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.

by Matt Klaassen on Sep 28, 2011 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions

SIERA tries to do the exact same thing that FIP and xFIP which is to give you a metric that tries to neutralize some of the luck and other factors that the pitcher can’t control. I don’t think the distinction you’re trying to draw about “ERA estimators” vs true talent predictors is quite on point. They all do the same thing.

And in response to Matt, some of those pitchers with BB/9 over 4 and K/9 are pretty decent. Chad Billingsley, for example, has been less than awful this year.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=100&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0

by kcdc1 on Sep 28, 2011 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions

The guys who developed and recently updated SIERA made it very clear that they were going for a metric which maximized ERA estimation and prediction. Hell, they even made a specific adjustment on the calculation for groundballs a pitcher gives up because groundballs lead to more errors and if you’re predicting ERA, player errors have to be taken into account. That gets you closer to ERA and further away from true talent and meaningful performance.

But the larger point (which all of the best sabermetricians would agree with) is that you have to use multiple metrics. At some point this season, Tango likened it to multiple guys looking at a woman from different angles. They all see her, but they see different parts and elements of her. To get the best, most comprehensive and accurate description of this woman, you’d need to talk to all of the guys that looked at her, not just the one who saw her from one angle.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 28, 2011 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions

not real high on Billingsley

naturally, some people want to trade for him

Because a 2 WAR pitcher will push the Royals over the top

But yeah, he’s decent. If Duffy in 20120 ends up being average-ish like Billingsley was this season, that would be a nice small surprise.

No point in getting into tiny areas of disagreement, since I think we all agree that Duffy was generally pretty crappy in the majors this season, we just disagree about the degree of that crappiness.

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.

by Matt Klaassen on Sep 28, 2011 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions