"If the Royals don't win in 2012, they won't in 2013..."
by Kim DeJesus on Jan 20, 2012 11:58 AM EST
Email
PrintI had a drunken conversation last night that somewhat made sense. Well, at least as much sense as a drunken conversation could possibly make. Anyway, I ran into one of the 3 other Royals fans in town and we were talking about the upcoming season. I said that I don't think the Royals will contend in 2012, but I am confident in their ability to contend in 2013. His response "if we don't win this year, we never will". I asked why that is and his response, although somewhat impaired, actually made a little sense....
Basically, his point is that if the young players show the improvement we should expect in 2012, that should be enough to at least contend for the division title with Victor Martinez now being out for the year. And if they DON'T improve, that means they're likely to end up being busts. He does have somewhat of a point here. Usually players that have a good rookie year, if they come back and suck or don't improve the next season, it's unlikely things will change in the future.
So let's say Hosmer and Moustakas come back this year and Hosmer has a .750 OPS and Moustakas goes back to the player he was before late-April. How likely would it be that those guys would come back in 2013 and all of a sudden tear it up? Not very. History has shown most players either improve in their 2nd season or they never do. Alex Gordon is the exception, not the norm.
My argument to his point was pitching. I believe, even with improvement from our lineup, our starting rotation will still keep us out of contention this year. But he said he "guarantees" the guys on the staff right now will be the ones on the team next year or they will be replaced with similar pitchers because "Dayton Moore is an idiot". What about Danny Duffy? "He sucks. He'll never make it. We don't have any other good potential starters for the near future in the organization" (paraphrasing).
Then the conversation turned to 2012 and I asked him if he really thinks we can win this year. He said he does think so because the division is terrible and Detroit is the only real competition. But now that Victor is out, that weakens their team. I would agree the only real competition is Detroit. I think Cleveland has a good rotation, but what else? That lineup is terrible and the bullpen is nothing special.
So that got me thinking..... maybe a drunken Royals fan actually has a point. Maybe if the Royals don't win in 2012, they never will. Maybe there's something to that. And why CAN'T the Royals contend this year? One other thing he said was the only reason Royals fans don't expect the team to contend is because we have a losers mentality. If the Cardinals had the same roster and coaches, their fans would be predicting a division title because that's what they're use to. His point was that Royals fans have seen so much losing that you have to win before they will expect to win in the future.
I believe the Royals have the best lineup and bullpen in the division. But I think the rotation ranks 4th (ahead of Minnesota). Is a good lineup and good bullpen enough to win a weak division with a mediocre rotation? And is it true that most of us don't expect to compete for the division title because we have a "losers mentality"? But then again, how can we NOT have a defeatist attitude? We haven't been to the postseason in 27 years! We lose 90 games every friggin year!
202 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think that they're right.
We will never win if we don’t try to contend this year. That is why I am glad that our team has a winning attitude. The whole team wants to win, and I think that’s what is ultimately going to make us win in 2012.
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.
You think the team is planning on winning in 2012?
Hasn’t Dayton and Ned both eluded to expecting contention in 2013 but not 2012?
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
by Kim DeJesus on Jan 20, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
Well, I think the team (as in the players and the coaching staff) have the enthusiasm for us to win lots of games.
I didn’t mean to include DM in “the team” because he has clearly said that the Royals need to wait to make any big moves until 2013.
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.
Have you been around for spring training yet?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Don't players and coaches say the same thing every offseason?
“We expect to win.” “We’re doing everything we can to make sure we’re playing in October.” “There’s a lot of talent on this team. I think we can contend.” I’ve heard this stuff from every team, every offseason of my life.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
Even the 04' Tigers?
Gotta think that 119 loss season did a little sobering. Sure, we’ve had 100+ loss Royals teams but…not like that.
Wow!
Politicians promise the world, no matter what side of the fence they are on! So do they in any sports, to get the fans motivated! That’s all common! This is not the same team as previous years. This team wants to win and there is a different vib in the atmosphere. If it wasn’t for the pitching, Royals would of done much better last year. Do you not recall, how many games we were winning with a pretty much nice lead and thanks to the pitching, the team lost? So far, they have improved the pitching (some what—still needs to be proven) and we will soon see, how much better the pitching will be. As long as the team stays united and play as a team, they shall do fine! They got to play together and be strong! Never giving up as they showed us during their ending season! I am confident they are going to do much better this season. They want to do it and they will! Also, although the Tigers lost a good players does not mean, we can put our guards down. In no sports can a one man team win. The Tigers can still win without even of they lost a good player. Royals need to do their thing, play the game and stay strong! Now adding a little humor…let me get my crystal ball out….Says we need to get in to a more positve energetic stage..ha, ha, ha..just kidding!
This is not the same team as previous years. This team wants to win and there is a different vib in the atmosphere.
What evidence do you have of that? These guys are saying that players and coaches say every offseason. It “feels different” this year because we as fans see more talent and WE feel more hope. That’s it. That’s all. We want to believe there is a special spirit on this team. We want to believe that they have special moments in the clubhouse where they get together and talk about how much they love the game and want to win this one for their handicapped brother who was paralyzed when a foul ball hit them in the side of the head. We want to believe that this team will make the Indians from “Major League” and the Knights from “The Natural” look like the 2005 Royals. We’re projecting. We’re giving them the spirit, heart, desire, etc. that we want them to have.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2012 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
Evidence, you just said it Scott!
It "feels different" this year because we as fans see more talent and WE feel more hope.
Including the team, who also believes! We all know they are being told what to say. We also know it’s to motivate the fans! they will play like the last half of the season even better. They (the team) want to do it and they will. The pitchers have a great defense as their backoff. The pitchers need to do their thing and everything else will balance out. your in for some nice surpirses this season and it is going to be an exciting one. There will be some loss, but not like last season. I perdict…they make the playoffs and you will see!
Including the team, who also believes!
I’m going to say this one more time. The team ALWAYS says it believes. It’s the same thing every offseason for every team. We’re more willing to believe it now because many of us believe in the team. That’s no evidence of a special winning spirit on this team or a special unity or a feeling of fraternity among the players. We can only guess at that, and project our hopes and dreams.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2012 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
Ok Scott!
I promise to take a finger print class and once completed..will go out and find the evidence for you. The evidence will come as the season starts.
16-3!!! 22-7!!! hoping for :)
Tonight fox sports will be showing a recap team awards winners & thought on 2012 at 9:30 and also Joel Goldberg, will be hosting interview with DM, Eric Hosmer, Alex Gordon, Bruce Chen and more…followed with “Best of 2011 KC Royals” sharing in case anyone wants to watch..both set for the same time.
I don't miss the enforced bedtime part of it.
"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 Jan 20, 2012 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Beggars cannot be choosers and all that but you need to find better informed friends.
History has shown most players either improve in their 2nd season or they never do. Alex Gordon is the exception, not the norm.
Just looking at Royals from the last decade or so, Butler, Damon, Dye, and Beltran all struggled in their 2nd season but did all right with the rest of their careers.
by Gopherballs on Jan 20, 2012 12:41 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
plus looking historically...
Koufax, Ryan, the Big Unit, Johnny Damon, Jose Bautista.
none of those guys were very good for their first few years, then suddenly improved throughout the rest of their career.
by DickHowser4ever on Jan 20, 2012 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
Right
But for every Butler, Damon, Dye, there are 5 Hamelin, Berroa, and Quinn’s.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Also..
Beltran was injured half of his 2nd season. And Johnny’s numbers didn’t fall off in his 2nd year in the bigs unless you’re considering the 47 games he played in 1995 to be his first? His numbers actually rose slightly in every category in his 2nd full season.
I’m not counting 1/4 of a season as someone’s first year. It’s too small of a sample size.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Yeah, I do not buy that at all
For every good player, there are five bad players. The “bad second year” is a false explanation for distinguishing between Butler, Damon, Dye, and company with Hamelin, Berroa, and Quinn.
This just seems so silly...
…player performance fluctuates from year to year. Some players more than others. But there is nothing particularly odd about a player having a bad year in his second season. There is also nothing particularly odd about a player having a bad year in his third season, or fourth season, or first season or whatever.
And you don’t need any particularly advanced statistical knowledge to know this. Anyone who has watched baseball for more than a year or two can think of multiple examples (no, Gordon is not the exception… it happens all the time). If you need numerical proof, just go look at a random selection of baseball-reference pages. You’ll stumble on quite a few guys who slumped in year 2.
by kcemigre on Jan 20, 2012 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Perhaps "odd" isn't how I would define it
There are certainly plenty of examples of players. I’m sure if I took time to think about it, I could come up with a dozen players off the top of my head that had a pretty good rookie year, horrible 2nd year, and then came back to have a good 3rd year.
But I bet there are a much higher percentage of players that did not.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Jason Hayward just had his sophomore slump
What if he has a mediocre 2012?
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
according to your theory
he isn’t going to get any better so it doesn’t really matter.
by Bronzillo on Jan 20, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No
I did not say that at all.
I said it’s MORE LIKELY that a player such as him won’t get better.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
until you can actually show that "there are a much higher percentage of players that did not"
this is a waste of time
by Gopherballs on Jan 20, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
No
Linear improvement is not necessarily the norm. Even good players go up and down from season to season. And this includes a sophomore season where the player can take a step backwards.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
True
But here’s a hypothetical….
Let’s say Hosmer and Moustakas suck this year. They post .260/.320/.420 lines.
You think this board won’t give up on them and write them off as busts or, at the very least, say they’ll NEVER be anything more than role players? I guarantee that won’t be the case.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
I know this board wouldn’t give up on Hosmer if that happened. Even the most casual and uninformed Royals fans wouldn’t do that. Some would give up on Moustakas, but I think that would be premature. Regardless, fan reaction does not necessarily correlate with what is most reasonably expected.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
I'd be more concerned if Hoz struggles mightily
Moose takes more time to adjust, so I think the pitchers will have a good idea of his weaknesses going into the season and it might take him a few months to correct.
Hoz had a fast start and didn’t have any real issues making adjustments throughout the year. If he struggled all season in 2012, I’d be worried that he had a real un-fixable hole in his swing.
.260/.420/.420 wouldn't even be struggling for Moustakas
it wouldn’t be good, exactly, but it would show a surprising ability to take a walk, for one thing.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 20, 2012 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think it's important to point out that both Moose and Hos had terrible minor league seasons.
And this board’s position on them didn’t really change at all.
you clearly dont remember the 'dayton shouldve taken smoak over hosmer'
consensus on this board from late in 2009 season (i believe)…it was absurd even then…smoak was meh in AAA as a 23 year old
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 21, 2012 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
I think some of this was more indicative of frustration with taking rawer HS guys
and more that it was endemic of what was perceived to have been an organizational flaw given success rates of college players versus high school players.
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 Jan 21, 2012 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah,
but the preference for Smoak was largely driven by the fact that he was a polished college hitter and viewed as much closer to being ready/less risky for a team that badly needed their players to pan out. It strikes me as having been a philosophical preference more so than a preference of Player A versus Player B.
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 Jan 22, 2012 3:26 AM EST up reply actions
i think that preference came out due to hosmers early struggles....
most people liked the pick when it was made
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 22, 2012 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
Which is odd, considering that Rany is such an age fetishist. Which goes against his other pet draft project, which was mesauring the success rates of various types of draftees. He found college hitters to have the highest success rates. And now he’s all in favor of 18 year old draftees, rather than 19 year old ones.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 22, 2012 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
Wasn't he in favor of 17-year-old draftees?
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 Jan 23, 2012 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
I'm sure he'd be in favor of 13-year-old draftees
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
I would be too
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 Jan 23, 2012 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
But the article was specifically comparing first round picks that were 17 to older ones, wasn't it?
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 Jan 23, 2012 8:31 PM EST up reply actions
Something like that
I don’t remember the specifics, except that one year for a young draftee is a big deal. Interestingly a new article in SI says that it works the other way for Dominican signees. 16yo’s get a lot more money, but a higher percentage of 17 yo’s make it to the majors.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 9:06 PM EST up reply actions
I would guess that some of this has to do with growth spurts ironing themselves out by 17,
but that’s really just taking a run at it.
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 Jan 24, 2012 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
But it was when viewed in concert with Moustakas's simultaneous struggles
and applied to the larger organizational practice of taking further from ready players when guys like Wieters, Posey, or Smoak were viewed as closer to being Major Leaguers.
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 Jan 22, 2012 11:18 PM EST up reply actions
you surely don't know what your talking about!
If they would of had terrible Minor league seasons, they would of never made the mlb rotation in 2011! Ha!
Yeah, I would definitely give more credence to the theory if there were statistics backing up that contention.
How can you back it up by statistics?
Is there even a possible way to look up every 1st year player and compare the average improvement/decline in their 2nd year, and then see what percentage of players that declined ended up having a big year 3?
I’m not a stats expert, so I wouldn’t know.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Is there even a possible way to look up every 1st year player and compare the average improvement/decline in their 2nd year, and then see what percentage of players that declined ended up having a big year 3?
Yes.
by kcemigre on Jan 20, 2012 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
There are thousands of players
Is there a way to group them ALL together and come up with that statistic?
Unless you want to do it 1 by 1???
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
If you have a theory...
….you comb the data for support.
You, my friend, have a theory. If you want that theory to be taken seriously, I would suggest you do some work with the data.
You don’t have to look at every player in history, though. Pick a couple of years at random, find a list of the rookies from those years and then track what they did that year, the next year, and the year after. That seems like a pretty darn manageable project.
by kcemigre on Jan 20, 2012 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
in reality, you should first comb the data, then build your theory based on information gathered from that data
i think what you mean is: if you have a hypothesis, you should comb the data and see if it supports your hypothesis.
by DickHowser4ever on Jan 21, 2012 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
It takes work, but you could do it for a larger set of players (not necessarily ALL)
Hell, I crunched the first six MLB seasons stats for every top 100 prospect from 1990 to 2003. Now it’s your turn!
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
He's not a friend
Just some drunk dude that saw my Royals gear.
Which part of his argument do you find “idiotic”? I don’t necessarily completely agree with what he said, but he makes some valid points.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Pretty much the whole argument is idiotic.
Has this guy really never heard of a player who had a sophomore slump? Heck, if it doesn’t happen, why do we even have the expression “sophomore slump”?
It is a little early to dismiss Duffy. And, even if you did, it is just plain stupid to suggest that Duffy has ever, at any point in his professional career, been the best potential starter in the Royals’s system. Duffy arrived in the Bigs first, but Montgomery and Lambe (and now Odorizzi) were always considered to have higher ceilings than Duffy. What does your guy know that the rest of the world doesn’t?
He also seems to pretty dramatically over-value V-Mart, but whatever…
Perhaps he's just unimpressed with Duffy?
I suppose everyone has an opinion and if they’ve come to the conclusion, from watching Duffy pitch, that they have no confidence in him, so be it.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
He can be unimpressed.
But he’s still an idiot. Duffy has pitched about a hundred innings. Based on the numbers, I haven’t seen enough to dismiss him. Based upon my eyes, I see a guy who has some nice pitches, but has been leaving them up in the zone. Maybe he never puts it together, but it is way too early to give up on Danny Duffy. And anyway:
We don’t have any other good potential starters for the near future in the organization…
This is even dumber than thinking Duffy is done.
by kcemigre on Jan 20, 2012 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Who do we have for the NEAR future?
Montgomery? Come on, you really think a guy that got torched at AAA and couldn’t throw strikes last year is going to cut it at the Big League level?
Lamb? What do you think the odds of him being ready to be a quality starter at the Big League level within the next year or so are, especially after coming back from Tommy John?
I’m not talking about 2014. I’m talking about 2012-2013 here. Who do we have that you think are likely to be solid contributors over these 2 seasons? Personally, I have very little confidence in ANY of the starters we currently have. I think we will open the season with maybe 4 average #5 starters and possibly 1 quality #4 starter.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
In the majors?
Monty, sure. But Lamb? He will hardly pitch at all in 2012 and probably not at all in real games. So his first real game action back will probably be 2013. And TJ patients usually aren’t back to 100% in their first year back. So he’s very likely going to need that full season in the minors and perhaps some of 2014 as well. Hell, we don’t know how long his development to become MLB-ready would have taken if he hadn’t gotten injured at all.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
It varies.
I think 18 months is a reasonable expectation if we’re talking about regaining your form (as opposed to just being able to stand on a mound and pitch). But some guys are faster and some slower…
who's the last guy that wasnt on the mound right around 12 months after surgery?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
What was Strasburg's timeline?
When was his surgery and when did he pitch in his first real game?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
But really, does anyone know the dates? I’ll buy the 12 month thing if someone can show me that it was only 12 months from surgery to first official game pitched. Is that how long it has been for pitchers recently?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Well, I think kcemigre's point is that they may be "back" in that they're starting actual games
But that most major injury rehabbers may not necessarily have their best stuff and greatest endurance as soon as they are “back”. Jamaal Charles will probably be able to start Week 1 for the Chiefs in 2012, but people will probably agree that he may not look like he’s 100% until Week 6 or later. It’s one of those things that’s probably impossible to measure objectively, though.
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 20, 2012 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
strasburg's stuff and results were both back
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
surgery sept 2
first major league start september 6
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Cool
Now when was Lamb’s surgery?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Then I guess he should be pitching this summer
I still think him getting the the majors in 2013 is pretty aggressive and best case scenario, but possible.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
i think being in the rotation to start 2013 is probably the best case scenario
but i dont think him seeing the majors in 2013 is really all that unlikely of a scenario
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
It would take things going very well with health, recovery of stuff, and performing well in the minors. He still hasn’t had a full season in AA. He’s had two partial seasons for a total of 15 starts. And he hasn’t yet had genuinely good numbers in AA yet (6.4 K/9, 3.4 BB/9). So he has work to do at the AA level. Given how wildly aggressive more sometimes has been with prospects, based largely on stuff and without regard to stats, it is certainly possible that Moore could rush him to the majors in 2013 though.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
and its certainly possible that him being in the majors in 2013
wont be rushing him at all.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Lots of things are possible
Giavotella could turn into Pedroia.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
an elite pitching prospect....
generally doesnt spend 1 1/2 years in AA and AAA which is what it would take for him to not be in the majors in 2013…and thats not even counting the half season he’s already spent there
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
What about if that elite pitching prospect doesn't perform very well in AA?
Because that’s where we’re at with Lamb….plus TJ surgery.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
Gotta think youth plays a factor on the healing process too
A 24yo should recover much quicker than a 30yo
High walk rate
and was tore up at AAA in 2011.
I’m not saying it’s impossible for Monty to make an impact in the bigs by 2013, but not sure that his AAA numbers give me much confidence.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Monty's future is definitely up in the air
He has a lot of talent, but lots of top prospects who busted in the majors had a lot of talent. Who knows when he’ll be major league ready. And when he makes it to the majors, we have no idea if he’ll ever be any good. He could be a superstar or a super failure or anything in between.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
After 2011
I would be satisfied with him being something in between.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
I would look towards the many scouting reports/prospect analysts
that seem to still be quite bullish on Montgomery. It seems that his stuff still impresses, and the ceiling doesn’t seem to have been lowered in spite of his struggles repeating his delivery/release point (if I correctly recall the issue that plagued his 2012).
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 Jan 21, 2012 7:15 PM EST up reply actions
You said "near future."
And the lineup will be in place for several years to come, so you are moving the goalposts if 2014 or 2015 is suddenly off the table.
Yes. Montgomery by 2013. Lamb in 2013 is a long-shot, but not impossible. In any event, if he’s ever going to reach his potential, 2014 is a perfectly reasonable timeframe to expect. Odorizzi, too.
All three of them have consistently carried higher ceilings than Duffy, and this quote is stupid:
We don’t have any other good potential starters for the near future in the organization…
If we don't contend by 2013
The bulk of our fan base will have given up.
Sad but true.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
We've had tons of failure and there remains a core of fans who haven't given up
Many fans will go away, and await the Royals eventually becoming good. That’s what fans do when the team is bad, or turns bad. And then when things get better, they come back.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
HAHAHA.
The Royals fanbase? The one that has been around since 1985 will give up? That’s the best thing I’ve read today.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
by Warden11 on Jan 20, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What fan base?
We slogged through the last decade of this stuff. What’s a couple more years?
Honestly, if they haven’t already left the building, a couple more years of rebuilding ain’t gonna make that much difference.
I think this is different
We’ve had NO hope for well since 1994. Other than the excitement for 2004, what season have we entered where there was much optimism?
I mean, I get excited for every year because I’m a die-hard. But I’ve known we weren’t going to win. It just doesn’t stop me from going to games.
With having the alleged “best farm system” in ages, people have been getting excited about the future. I think most are of the opinion that this team is going to contend real soon. If that doesn’t happen by 2013, it will be a major kick in the balls – one we’re not accustomed to.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Eh, I think we're pretty accustomed to it around here.
Maybe the Fescoe’s of the world will flip out.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Not familiar with Fescoe
Other than I know he has a show on 810 or 610. But that’s their job. Radio talk show hosts make their money by overreacting.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
he has been eventually fired from every job he's had.
just a matter of time before 610 pulls his plug.
I will have to remember to never listen to his show then!
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Wrong
We’ve had NO hope for well since 1994
How long have you been following this team? Do you think there was no hope during the time of Damon, Beltran, Dye and Sweeney? Do you think there was no hope during or just after the 2003 season? Hopes come and go. With the Royals these hopes have been dashed time and time again and the fans just keep coming back. Attendance ebbs and flows with the record. But with wins, the fans come back.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
were you really hopeful with those late 90s early 2000's teams?
it was pretty obvious to me that while they were going to be fun to watch…they werent gonna be able to pitch for shit
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
I was very hopeful
Probably far beyond what was rational. I was more of an optimists and less of a harsh, number crunching realist back then.
But I’m really talking about the large majority of the fanbase, as opposed to serious analysts. I’m sure there was a lot of hope and excitement back then.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
the only time i really remember being hopeful was from mid april 03-mid april 04
that was a fun 12 months for sure
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
i was absolutely ecstatic with the juan gonzalez signing
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
Are there younger Royals fans anymore?
I started going to games as a kid, but that doesn’t count. I was too young to actually care if they won or lost.
But what hooked me was in my Teen years (the 1990’s). I wonder if there’s much of a 16-25 die-hard crowd. I don’t live in KC, so I’m no expert on this.
We have to have lost an entire generation of fans by now, right?
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Yes.
But if the Royals ever win, they’ll come back around.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
The attendance figures would argue against this
That, plus common sense.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
It the Royals ever start winning again
all the teenagers will hear their dad’s yelling at their TV’s and join in.
Wholesome male bonding.
Winning brings fans
Many teams have shown that in many sports in many cities. And the Royals have shown that time and time again. There’s no reason to believe that the present day Royals are any different. If this youth movement crashes and burns over the next few years and the vast majority of these prospects bust and the Royals never even get to .500, that will stink and attendance will drop. But as soon as the Royals rise again at some point in the future, the fans will come back. If you win, they will come (unless you are in a city where the fans just never really support the team, regardless….like perhaps Tampa Bay for the Rays). KC is not that kind of city. The attendance history shows that.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
I fall right into that
audiance at 23 and love the Royals because its my backyard team, I don’t give a fuck if they suck it’ll just be that much sweeter when we do start to win some shit in october.
by Kansas City Keith on Jan 20, 2012 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
There are definitely plenty of "fans" in that demographic
that go out to Kauffman for games with some regularity. However, a big portion of that demographic is a college crowd that just uses the games as an outdoor bar in which they can booze it up and sort of pay attention to the baseball men on the field. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. .
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 20, 2012 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
Nothing wrong with that at all
But we do need die-hards that actually go to the games because they love the team. That’s what makes the atmosphere great.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
me being blasted out of my mind and buying 6 $8 bers is helping the team out more than those who sit in their seats watching the game and eating the peanuts they brought in
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
It helps ownership when you spend money
Not the team. In KC, the two are not related.
by Rufus R. Jones on Jan 20, 2012 10:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
glass spends the vast majority of the revenues on the team...
that has been shown time and time again…increased revenue=equals expenditures on the team.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 11:35 PM EST up reply actions
Ive not seen anything that convinces me of that
by Rufus R. Jones on Jan 25, 2012 12:35 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
every published number supports it...
which is more than the ‘glass refuses to spend’ crowd has
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 25, 2012 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
The Forbes numbers every year show this
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 25, 2012 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks
That’s what I was looking for. I will try to look that up. Not surprisingly, I got the expected smart ass, non-helpful response from bbb.
by Rufus R. Jones on Jan 26, 2012 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
weve talked about the forbes numbers on here a ton...
and you’re around quite a bit i thought
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 26, 2012 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
He's still pretty new around here
Joined in July 2011.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 26, 2012 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
well then rufus...
i do apologize…i was aboslutely being a jackass but i thought you were completely dismissing the only financial spending data we have on major league baseball teams
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 26, 2012 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
Treasure this day, Rufus.
Treasure it.
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 Jan 26, 2012 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
We had hope during 2003
I was talking about entering a season.
But I do remember most people not really believing the Royals were going to win, even when they were in first place back in 2003.
What other season had optimism entering it other than 2004, since 1994? I don’t recall any. And, to answer your question, I’ve been a fan since I was about 5 years old (1985 or so)
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
I was talking about entering a season.
After 2003, there was a good deal of hope entering the 2004 season. And after the Royals won something like 75 games with Damon, Sweeney, Beltran and Dye, there was hope entering the next season (when was this? 99, 00?)
Any decent combination of talent leads to hope. And hopes are often dashed. And the fans just keep coming back. The numbers stay low while the team isn’t winning, and as the wins start to increase, so does attendance. There’s no reason to believe that most fans are “lost for good.” None.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
I dunno about that
We have issues with this with Iowa basketball.
We’ve fallen farther than we ever have (similar to the Royals) and Carver Hawkeye Arena has turned into a morgue, despite formerly having a once loyal fan base that regularly sold out the arena.
We suffered through the ups and downs of the Steve Alford era. We had so much hope to do big things, and when that didn’t……….POOF! That was it. The fans completely left. They’d been kicked in the balls one too many times.
I see a lot of similarities between Iowa hoops and the current Kansas City Royals because there are fans that are going to head into these next 2 years with so much hope – hope that many of them have probably never had. If the team doesn’t produce, it won’t sit well with the fans.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Right
But fans are fans. Not EVERY fan is loyal to the bone.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
And if Iowa basketball starts winning again, the fans will come back
In big numbers, with high intensity.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
Not necessarily
The program was falling apart in terms of fan support in 2005-2006 when the team won 25 games and a Big-10 title. The pathetic loss to Northwestern State in the NCAA Tournament was the dagger on this program. Even that year, attendance was low compared to most years, up to that point. Attendance will rise when they start winning, but it will be a long time before it’s back to selling out the arena every night. It’s actually quite frustrating to even think about it!
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
I totally disagree with this,
but they have the right guy now. Alford is/was a dumbass. I understood what they were trying to do by hiring him, but we all knew he’d bolt if Indiana came calling. When that didn’t happen he was done. Dr. Tom was a decent recruiter but he wasn’t half the coach that his kid is.
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Jan 21, 2012 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
That did happen during the last half of the season.
Their were more people at the stadium then the frist half.
Understandable
If that doesn’t happen by 2013, it will be a major kick in the balls – one we’re not accustomed to.
To me it will be just another losing sweep added to the previous years vs. it being a major kick in the b…s No difference in my opinion. Another one bites the dust! If they come out and play as they did in September this season we should be better…if the pitching crew has improved! Supposely, it has, but we shall see come opening day. The pitchers have to do a better job then last season, if we are to get any where.
I have a hard time dimissing a guy like Duffy that strikes people out.
The kid has great stuff and I think a coaching change could bring really good things for Danny Duffy.
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Jan 20, 2012 3:40 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously.
I don’t know if a coaching change does it or not. But I have seen enough baseball (and enough of Duffy) to know that he could yet put it all together.
I just think having a different mindset might do him some good.
He’s a strikeout pitcher and the whole “pitch to contact” mantra would seem to fly in the face of these guys that get alot of strikeouts.
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Jan 21, 2012 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
When did Victor Martinez become a 10 WAR player?
I mean, it sure doesn’t help the Tigers, but it’s not like it’s a season-crippler. He was a 2.9 fWAR player last year, with only 32 games at C or 1B. 2-win 1B/DH’s aren’t that hard to find. Up until an hour ago, Carlos Pena was the perfect example.
I don't think Detroit was all that great last year
And losing one of their best players makes them even less not-so-great.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
They project to be about 9 wins better than the Royals right now
w/o VMart
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
but if VMart does not play
the Tigers forfeit the DH position
No way to project a team like the Royals accurately
Too many young players are keys to the team. Not one single person can project without pure luck how well about 5-7 key players on this team will perform.
And then I would probably throw Hochevar into that group because he was strong the 2nd half of the season. We have no idea if that’s how he will pitch in 2012 or if he will revert back to the typical Luke Hochevar.
I could see the Royals going 70-92 and I could also see them winning 85+ games. I don’t think either are far-fetched.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Speaking of Hochevar...
…know what he did?
He kinda stunk in his second full season and has slowly improved each of the two years since then.
But he's different
He sucked his first year and his second year. And even his 3rd year was mediocre.
He had some great starts in 2010, but overall, he pretty much stunk of the joint.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
You are making a distinction without a difference.
He played better in his third year. Lots of guys do. (Even pitchers).
For Moose, Duffy, Hosmer, Perez, Giavotella, etc… year three will be 2013.
Ballplayers improve in their third year all the time. And, in the case of hitters, that is, in fact the norm because of the aging curve. So, it is more likely than not that the Royals offense will be better in 2013 than in 2012, even without a single roster move, based solely upon aging curves. The theory you espouse in this post assumes (for absolutely no reason at all) that the 2013 lineup will be no better than the 2012 lineup.
That makes no sense.
And Escobar will be in his fourth year.
But Cain will be in his second year, so those two cancel each other out, right?
I understand that
But this doesn’t follow the pattern I was suggesting earlier.
Sucky year-sucky year-improvement is not the same as good year-sucky year…
A lot of times when a player struggles in year 2 after having a good 1st year, it’s because the league figured them out. This is different than a player (i.e. Hochevar or Gordon) just not figuring things out early on.
Again, I’m not saying EVERY player fails to improve after having a bad second year, but tons of prospects have started off strong and then just fell apart the next year and never put things back together.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Sucky year-sucky year-improvement is not the same as good year-sucky year…
You are making a distinction without a difference.
…and anyway, both of those things happen all the time.
Look, your post relies upon this notion that ballplayers generally do not come back from a sophomore slump.
You do not offer any theory as to why this would be the case.
You do not offer any data to support what you are saying.
You really should do both of those things if you want to have any kind of intelligent discussion.
Read what I wrote again...
I DID explain the difference…
The difference is the league figuring you out vs you not figuring things out (for whatever reason) early in your career.
There is a BIG difference between those. Just ask Angel Berroa and Alex Gordon.
Once the league figures you out, you have to learn to adjust to this. A lot of players are unable to do that. This is why you see players that have a solid rookie year and then fall flat on their face in the 2nd year. And, I got news for you, a large chunk of those players NEVER get back to form (sup Berroa?).
On the other hand, usually when a player struggles early and then figures things out, they tend to continue playing well. Sometimes it’s maturity (i.e. Josh Hamilton) and sometimes they find a coach that can teach them how to pitch at this level (i.e. Chris Carpenter). This is part of the reason I’m confident Gordon will only build on his 2011 success.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
A prime example...
Eric Hosmer
We all know he’s struggled with chasing that high-and-away pitch. We’re going to learn about his mental toughness this year. Can he teach himself to lay off it? Or will he just never have the discipline to?
I think Hosmer’s a lock to be a damn good hitter for a long time in this league if he can just fight off the temptation to chase the fastball up and away. But we’ll see if he can. More and more pitchers are going to start throwing that pitch consistently against him. Some players just can’t figure out how to make these adjustments. I hope Hosmer can.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Great example
Now, do this analysis with the statistics of about 30 other random players, and if you see any patterns, let me know.
Here are some quick examples...
Since I’m a Royals/Cubs fan, I stuck with these teams since I could come up with them off the top of my head….
Jerome Walton. Rookie of the year in 1989. Numbers dropped off in 1990. Mediocre after that until somewhat of a resurgence in 1995.
Dwight Smith. .875 OPS in 1989. .705 in 1990. .627 in 1991. .709 in 1992. By 1994, he did come back with an .848 OPS season.
Rick Wilkins. First full year in bigs was 1993. Batted .303 with 30 HR’s. Didn’t hit more than 7 HR’s in a season again until 1996, when he hit 14 with a .243 ave.
Mark Bellhorn. This sorta fills the mold, though he played in a few games in a few prior seasons. But his first full season was .886 OPS and 27 HR’s. He was a complete bust the rest of his career.
Matt Murton. Another that only sorta fits the mold here. He had a very good 51 games in 2005, but his first full season was 2006 where he posted an .809 OPS. It was all downhill from there. His 2007 numbers are misleading if you watched him play that year. Was very lost at the plate. It only got worse until he was gone for good.
Geovanny Soto. Now this is a weird case because he kind of fits the mold for and against my argument. Great rookie year in 2008, terrible year in 2009, and then 2010 was sorta good, sorta not good. Still didn’t have his power back but he took a ton of walks. 2011, he sucked again. His .890 OPS in 2010 is another reason why stats lie sometimes (even though that’s hard to believe by some baseball fans, which makes me wonder if some people actually WATCH the games). Geo was very disappointing even in 2010. Failed at many times to drive in key runs when they were needed and almost seemed like he was just trying to take a walk far too often, which was a bad idea considering the hitters below him in the lineup weren’t going to get the job done.
Rich Hill. Another kinda-sorta here. Here’s a guy that had a great 1st full season in 2007. He was a big key to helping the Cubs make the playoffs. Then hitters actually started forcing him to throw strikes and he just hasn’t figured things out, nor will he ever. I remember Lou pulling him after 4 batters in 1 start and I don’t believe he ever pitched for the Cubs again.
Mike Fontenot. In his first full year, 2008, he somehow managed a .909 OPS. Even I am shocked to know that. I didn’t realize it was THAT high. His downfall was predictable because his success was a result of the sick lineup around him. He never even came close to matching those numbers.
And because I don’t have time to finish this right now….
A quick list of Royals include Mark Quinn, Bob Hamelin, Angel Berroa, Carlos Febles (to a lesser extent), Runelvys Hernandez (yes, I realize he actually ended 2003 with a garbage ERA but that’s misleading), Jose Santiago (yeah, I know he was never great, but still), Shawn Camp, Nate Field (I only put him in here because what is Shawn Camp without his buttbuddy Nate Field?),
I guarantee I could come up with many more from these 2 teams if I wanted to spend the time doing it.
Now, as for the list of players that are the exact opposite….
Hmm….
Zack Greinke (that had more to do with mental issues, though, so that’s a different sorta case)
Carlos Beltran (mostly injured in 2000 so, again, this is a big reason for the exception to the rule)
I’m having a hard time thinking of other Royals/Cubs players off the top of my head that had a good rookie year, bad 2nd year, then came back in their 3rd year strong. Maybe you guys could help me out here????
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
I'll take players who had fluke BABIP in their rookie years for 200, Alex
Just looking at the 1989 Cubs, Jerome Walton had a high BABIP in 1989 yet still the rest of his career was very similar to his rookie year:
1989: 293/335/385 721 OPS
Career (1989-98): 269/333/376 708 OPS
Walton was a mediocre player who just happened to post a higher than career average BABIP in 1989 (337 v. 310) and won a ROY in a bad year for rookie because of stealz!
Dwight Smith had a fluke good BABIP in 1989 (359) that was 45 points higher than his career BABIP (314). Adjust for 45 points of BABIP, and the rest of his career was basically the same:
1989: 324/382/493 875 OPS
Career (1989-96): 275/333/422 755 OPS
The funny thing is two of their teammates on the 1989 Cubs were Ryne Sandberg and Andre Dawson, both of whom had relatively bad second years and ended up in the Hall of Fame.
by Gopherballs on Jan 20, 2012 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I don't see Hoz, having a problem
Some players just can’t figure out how to make these adjustments. I hope Hosmer can.
He could
If you said that before, I still can't find it...
…but whatever.
That’s certainly not a very compelling theory. Everyone is adjusting to everyone else all the time. It doesn’t take a whole season.
Why don’t you come back when you have some data.
It seems to me that players rebound from sophomore slumps all the time. All the time. That’s what it seems like. Broadcasters talk about this sort of thing during the games. It is, at this point, received wisdom that players sometimes just have a bad second year. But maybe everyone is wrong. Maybe you (along with your new drunk friend) have discovered some new baseball wisdom that ought to be shared with the world.
If so, you ought to back it up with something. That’s why we go to the data. Try it. See if you’re right. If so, people will be genuinely interested. If not, well, we don’t even have to talk about it again, since there’s no shame in proving the null hypothesis.
Most announcers...
Also think batting average, RBI’s, pitcher wins are what defines how good a player is……
Just sayin….
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
And when people started to challenge those guys’ reliance on all those old-school numbers, the didn’t just say “I think you’re wrong, so you probably are.”
They backed it up with both theory and data. That’s where sabermetrics comes from. That’s where new knowledge comes from.
You, on the other hand, really haven’t done much in the way of theory. And you have done nothing in the way of data.
So, you’ll have to excuse me if I dismiss you and your theory as quickly as you seem to have concocted it.
No way to project the team this year?
But you’re going to go ahead and project next year. Interesting thought process.
by Rufus R. Jones on Jan 20, 2012 10:48 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I feel the same way!
Although many are already perdicting 2013 and believe Royals will do better this year, but will not win 2012. (Yes, can happen) But I rather deal with 2012 today and as far as 2013, this can wait til the end of the year for me.
True
We have no idea how anyone will actually perform. That goes for all teams! We could only wait until the seasons starts to see their performance. I’ve always believe, when a team sticks together and play as a team…they usually end up playing well. On the other hand, if you have some trying and others not caring…then you have a team..that gives up and goes no where.
and Carlos Pena just signed for $7 million....
do the tigers have an extra 7 million or so to spend? if they do, that takes away from their ability to upgrade in other areas. there’s no way that it doesnt help the royals significantly
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2012 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
My point is that, sure, it helps
But it’s not like it suddenly vaults the Royals into a neck-and-neck race with Detroit. They won 95 games last year, and other than Martinez, haven’t had any significant losses from their roster. The 2012 Royals are very unlikely to play at their level, even without Victor. The Tigers still project to win 8-9 more games than the Royals will according to ZiPS and Scott’s calculations.
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 20, 2012 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
It's a reasonable argument, but there are some holes
The team should continue to get better the next few years as the young guys develop and the FO starts making moves geared toward winning now. The Royals have a lot of money and prospects sitting on the sideline that could be used to improve the team quite a bit, but Moore is holding off on making moves this offseason. The next few years should be a different story.
Yeah, for example, aging curves for hitters are pretty uncontroversial at this point
Hitters generally perform their best between their age 25 to 29 seasons (and improve until their age 25 season). 2012 will be Hosmer’s age 22 season and Moustakas’s age 23 season (not to mention Myers’s age 21 season). The Royals have at least a six-year club control window right now with Hosmer and Moustakas which should include most of their peak years.
Good points
The question is…..should we actually trust Dayton to make free-agent signings with that money? I gotta be honest, I have absolutely NO confidence in him to do so. That’s the problem.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Not really
The argument is whether or not we will be a contender in 2013 if we aren’t one in 2012.
My point is that in order to contend, even in 2013, we need to find starting pitching outside of our organization. And as kcdc1 stated, Dayton should have plenty of money to spend. My argument is that I don’t have confidence in Dayton to spend it wisely. So there is some credence to the argument that if we can’t win in 2012 with this current roster, maybe we won’t in 2013. Like I said earlier, I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it’s not that silly of an argument if you think about it.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
I’m sorry, but I really do think it is silly. It is exceedingly illogical.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
What if our 2013 pitching isn't better than 2012?
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
What are you asking?
I thought the issue was what 2012 meant for 2013 and beyond. If the pitching in 2012 is good, then having it be no better in 2013 would be just fine. Also, if the pitching is poor in 2012, that doesn’t mean it can’t be much better, even good in 2013.
Your assertion (or this stranger’s assertion which you apparently agree with) that 2012 seals the Royals fate is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2012 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
Well as has been said multiple times, even top prospects fail.
So the team not competing in 2013 is a definite possibility as well. Basing that possibility on how the players do this year isn’t illogical but following it blindly is definitely illogical.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
I don't think he can play shortstop
But otherwise, I completely agree!
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Quick and Dirty Random Sample
Here’s a quick way to test the “sophomore slump” theory with some actual numbers (small sample size alert—consider yourself warned).
Pick a year (I chose 2005) and go to the the fangraphs rookie leaderboard page. I found 57 batters listed there who were both rookie eligible and batting-title qualified in 2005. So, roughly speaking, these are the position players who exhausted their rookie eligibility that year. Of local interest, this group happens to include Jeff Franceour, Joey Gathright, Wilson Betemit, Yuniesky Betancourt, Chip Ambres and Mark Teahen.
Of those 57 players, 32 (or 56.1%) produced less fWAR the following year than they did in their rookie campaign. I call these the players who “slump.”
Of those 32 players who slumped, 19 (or 59.4%) produced more fWAR in 2007 than they did in 2006.
So, slightly more than half of the 2005 class of rookie position players slumped in their second year, and of those who did that, slightly more than half rebounded from the slump in year number three.
It does not appear from this sample that having a bad sophomore campaign indicates any likelihood of further decline.
Having collected the data, it also seemed logical to map out all the possibilities, especially since there are only four of them. So, I created four buckets for the data representing each possible three-year career path. Here were the percentages for each of those four possibilities:
12.3% – Steady Improvement (i.e. improve in year two and in year three)
31.6% – Up and Down (i.e. improve in year two and slump in year three)
22.8% – Steady Decline (i.e. slump in year two and keep getting worse)
33.3% – Sophomore Slump (i.e. slump in year two and rebound in year three)
As you can see, the “Sophomore Slump” group is the largest group in my randomly-selected dataset.
I did all of this in 20 minutes with a web browser and a spreadsheet, BTW. You could certainly do much more in-depth analysis if you wanted to explore the question more rigorously. It would be wise to collect a larger sample than just one year, of course, and you probably also want to see if the pitchers follow a different pattern than the hitters. You might also want to create more “buckets” based upon how much a player’s performance improves or declines. That’s more work than I’m going to to right now, however, because there is a beer waiting for me down at the River Market.
Nonetheless, I would tentatively conclude from this exercise that the odds of improving or declining in any given year are actually pretty close to 50/50, with regression perhaps pulling that third year toward the career-to-date mean. I don’t see any evidence at all, however, to support the argument that a slump in year two portends further decline in year three.
by kcemigre on Jan 20, 2012 9:01 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
If you still have the data, do you know how many rookies had better stats in their 3rd year than their rookie year?
In other words, regardless of their 2nd year, how many rookies improved from year 1 to 3?
I just got home.
That beer that was waiting for me turning out to be a whole lot of scotch. Who knew?
Anyway, I was using the computer in my office when I posted the above comment. I don’t recall whether I deleted that data before leaving the office, but if it’s still there when I arrive tomorrow morning, I’ll answer your question then.
And for 2007, same methodology except I used WAR instead of fWAR
51 players eligible, notable names include Alex Gordon, Kevin Kouzmanoff, Billy Butler and Tony Pena, Jr.
15.7% – Steady Improvement (i.e. improve in year two and in year three) (8/51players)
31.4% – Up and Down (i.e. improve in year two and slump in year three) (16/51)
15.7% – Steady Decline (i.e. slump in year two and keep getting worse) (8/51)
37.2% – Sophomore Slump (i.e. slump in year two and rebound in year three) (19/51)
As a group, the rookies went from 53 WAR to 63 to 67. so there was an overall increase in performance, though only 47% improved from year 1 to year 2, and only 53% improved from year 2 to year 3. 55% (28 out of 51) had better a better 3rd year than rookie year
So yeah, more evidence that a sophomore slump is more likely than a steady decline. Also, a note of caution that a player who improves in year 2 is more likely to decline in year 3 than to improve again.
I think there might be some selection bias at work here
By limiting the pool to rookies that qualified for the batting title, I suspect that your sample is skewed toward players that had good hitting luck their rookie seasons. If they’d had bad hitting luck, they probably wouldn’t have gotten enough AB’s to qualify.
Well...
…luck or talent. One way or the other, they did stay in the lineup.
But since we’re trying to predict future performance of the Royals’ 2011 rookies (i.e. Moose, Hoz, Perez, Gio, etc.), I think that’s a reasonable way to pick the dataset. All of them except Perez meet the criteria. (Perez was called up too late to qualify for the batting title.)
My thoughts too,
Plus only 22 of those 51 had a WAR of 1 or greater, 32 had a WAR of .5 or greater and 43 had a WAR of 0 or greater
(so 8 rookies got enough PAs, but had negative WARs, including such guys as Saltalamacchia, Elijah Dukes, Miguel Montero, Erick Aybar and Alexi Casilla)
Yeah, I didn’t mean that the data set will include only lucky players. It will just be skewed to have, on average, better hitting luck than a random sample of rookies.
Notably, the sample will have good-luck hitters, but it should have fewer hitters that ran into bad luck in their rookie seasons. It’s hard to get enough playing time to qualify for the batting title as a rookie if the BABIP gods aren’t on your side. Moose is an exception, but he was a super-prospect. A guy like Aviles would have never survived that stretch in his rookie year.
I suspect that the selection bias is working to prop up the population’s rookie hitting stats somewhat above their true talent, which in turn makes it harder to match and improve upon those numbers in the 2nd and 3rd year campaigns.
Correction: it looks like Fangraphs sets a 150 AB minimum to qualify on the rookie batting leader board. I think that’s still enough to skew the population (a bad luck Aviles would never make it that far), but it shouldn’t skew it as much as limiting the population to rookies that qualify for the batting title.
Can't believe how time you guys spent discussing this idea.
Sometimes you just have to dismiss something because it’s absurd. You don’t have to disprove every crazy assertion.
It's January
We’re almost forced to debate minute, meaningless detail. What’s the alternative? A thread about soccer?
by Rufus R. Jones on Jan 21, 2012 9:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- 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
