I can't bring myself to have a strong opinion either way on the Mark Teahen trade. Teahen was a decent player who was probably more popular with the fans than his numbers deserved, thanks to his media-friendly personality and willingness to be shuffled from third base to right field to left field back to third base, with a little first base thrown in there too (and I'm not qualified to judge this, but The Amazing Michelle assures me his looks did not hurt his popularity, either). Unfortunately, the way baseball salaries work, if a player can stick around long enough, his salary will keep going up, no matter what his production is. And Teahen was likely to get an arbitration-induced raise to around $5 million for 2010.
I like Teahen, but his OPS+ numbers the last three seasons are 98, 91, 94. The average major leaguer's salary is around $3 million. The Royals can't afford (and shouldn't want) to pay almost twice the average salary for slightly below-average production.
As for the players the Royals got back, third baseman Josh Fields and second baseman Chris Getz, I can't decide if these guys are useful or not. Fields will turn 27 in December; Getz turned 26 in August. Theoretically, their careers should be peaking now, so that's good. Fields had a decent rookie season in 2007, but has struggled since. From the stats, Getz appears to be a good-field, no-hit guy with good baserunning skills. Let's face it, the Royals could use some good fielders and some good baserunners, so he may be useful if he can get on base.
Of course, the unanswered questions after this trade involve Alex Gordon and Alberto Callaspo, who appeared to be set at third and second, respectively, in 2010. Perhaps the Royals intend to move one or both players, either to another position or another team entirely.
Until we see what other moves the Royals have in store this winter, it's hard to decide how to feel about this move. If the Royals have traded Teahen for two role players or organizational depth (admittedly, something the Royals need), it's probably not a major move. If one or both players end up starting next April, then the Royals may have pulled off a steal. If they have moved one slightly below-average player for two well below-average players, well...that's not really progress, is it? In fact, it's the kind of deal that has helped put the Royals in their current predicament.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Most Disappointing Royals Season? Part II: 1986
If you're interested enough in the Royals to be reading this, I imagine you know all the details about 1985. Of course, the Royals won their one (and only?) World Series title that year. It was the culmination of 17 years of Royals baseball, and the end of a decade's worth of postseason frustration. So perhaps a hangover of sorts was inevitable. But I'm sure no Royals fan imagined the season going awry in the way that it did.
The Royals followed up their 91-71 championship season* with a 76-86 record in 1986. That put them in third place, 16 games behind California. Heck, the usually (in the 1980s, anyway) mediocre Texas Rangers were able to finish second that year.
*History seems to have determined the Royals really weren't that good in 1985, just lucky. Well, they did win 91 games, although they outperformed their Pythagorean record by five games. So I suppose they were a bit lucky, but I would say a low-scoring team with a very good pitching staff would be a good candidate to seem lucky--they are likely to win more close, low-scoring games. Were they as good as the Blue Jays and Cardinals, the teams they beat in the postseason? Probably not, but they managed to get hot at the right time. And they did come back twice from 3-1 deficits. Don't let anyone kid you--the 1985 Royals were a good team.
The Royals brought back essentially the entire 1985 team for an encore. The pitching staff that had been so good in 1984 and 1985 was not filled with old-timers, although some of the core position players were entering the final phase of their careers. So what happened?
The Royals played basically .500 ball for the first three months of the season. That was nothing new for the mid-'80s Royals, though. In fact, through 72 games, the 1985 and 1986 teams had identical 37-35 records. The difference, of course, is that in 1985 the team got hot and stayed that way. In 1986, the Royals got to 37-35, then suffered through an 11-game losing streak in late June and early July. Then came the All-Star Break.
The 1986 All-Star Game should have been a celebration for the Royals and their fans. George Brett and Frank White were both selected as reserves, and of course Dick Howser was the AL manager, since his team had won the league the previous year. White ended up hitting a home run in the game--the eventual winning run for the AL--off Mike Scott of the Houston Astros, who was having a season for the ages and pitching in front of his home fans in the Astrodome.
But something was wrong. Howser seemed distracted and forgetful. Players thought he looked tired. Royals GM John Schuerholz insisted Howser go see a doctor. Soon after the All-Star Game, the diagnosis was in: Howser had a brain tumor. Howser's right-hand man, Mike Ferraro, took over managerial duties for the final 74 games.
Under these circumstances, a disappointing season was all but certain. The long losing streak had pretty much knocked them out of contention (8.5 games back and in fourth place when it ended, with 79 games left) and now their manager, the man who had inspired them and led them to two division titles and a World Series win in the previous two seasons, was fighting for his life in a hospital. Actually, the Royals played roughly .5oo baseball after the losing streak ended, but they could never really get in gear or put together a hot streak.
Hoswer would attempt a brief comeback in spring training in 1987, but had to give it up after only one day. Three months later, less than a year after his diagnosis, he passed on. He was only 51.
So 1986 saw two of the biggest reasons the Royals have not made a postseason appearance since that magical October of 1985. First, Howser's untimely death cut short what might have been a very good managerial career. In one full season with the Yankees and four with the Royals, he had won three division titles and a World Series. Yes, managers probably do not make that much difference in a team's record, but after Howser, the Royals began a managerial procession of retreads (Billy Gardner, Buddy Bell), former Royals from the "glory days" (John Wathan, Hal McRae), possibly crazy people (Bob Boone, Tony Pena Sr.), and uninspiring Eeyore types (Tony Muser, Buddy Bell). With Howser still in the dugout, perhaps some of the second- and third-place finishes over the next few years would become division titles. We'll never know, of course.
Also, after the 1986 season, the Royals traded away two young pitchers to try to fortify an offense that had been next to last in the league in runs scored. First, they sent Scott Bankhead to Seattle for outfielder Danny Tartabull. That move worked out well for the Royals. Second, they sent David Cone to the Mets for catcher Ed Hearn. That move would haunt the Royals for years. Had Cone been a part of the Royals in the late '80s and early '90s, perhaps they could have won another division title or two. And they might not have signed Mark Davis and Storm Davis as free agents after the 1989 season. That may or may not be foreshadowing for the next installment of this series...
The Royals followed up their 91-71 championship season* with a 76-86 record in 1986. That put them in third place, 16 games behind California. Heck, the usually (in the 1980s, anyway) mediocre Texas Rangers were able to finish second that year.
*History seems to have determined the Royals really weren't that good in 1985, just lucky. Well, they did win 91 games, although they outperformed their Pythagorean record by five games. So I suppose they were a bit lucky, but I would say a low-scoring team with a very good pitching staff would be a good candidate to seem lucky--they are likely to win more close, low-scoring games. Were they as good as the Blue Jays and Cardinals, the teams they beat in the postseason? Probably not, but they managed to get hot at the right time. And they did come back twice from 3-1 deficits. Don't let anyone kid you--the 1985 Royals were a good team.
The Royals brought back essentially the entire 1985 team for an encore. The pitching staff that had been so good in 1984 and 1985 was not filled with old-timers, although some of the core position players were entering the final phase of their careers. So what happened?
The Royals played basically .500 ball for the first three months of the season. That was nothing new for the mid-'80s Royals, though. In fact, through 72 games, the 1985 and 1986 teams had identical 37-35 records. The difference, of course, is that in 1985 the team got hot and stayed that way. In 1986, the Royals got to 37-35, then suffered through an 11-game losing streak in late June and early July. Then came the All-Star Break.
The 1986 All-Star Game should have been a celebration for the Royals and their fans. George Brett and Frank White were both selected as reserves, and of course Dick Howser was the AL manager, since his team had won the league the previous year. White ended up hitting a home run in the game--the eventual winning run for the AL--off Mike Scott of the Houston Astros, who was having a season for the ages and pitching in front of his home fans in the Astrodome.
But something was wrong. Howser seemed distracted and forgetful. Players thought he looked tired. Royals GM John Schuerholz insisted Howser go see a doctor. Soon after the All-Star Game, the diagnosis was in: Howser had a brain tumor. Howser's right-hand man, Mike Ferraro, took over managerial duties for the final 74 games.
Under these circumstances, a disappointing season was all but certain. The long losing streak had pretty much knocked them out of contention (8.5 games back and in fourth place when it ended, with 79 games left) and now their manager, the man who had inspired them and led them to two division titles and a World Series win in the previous two seasons, was fighting for his life in a hospital. Actually, the Royals played roughly .5oo baseball after the losing streak ended, but they could never really get in gear or put together a hot streak.
Hoswer would attempt a brief comeback in spring training in 1987, but had to give it up after only one day. Three months later, less than a year after his diagnosis, he passed on. He was only 51.
So 1986 saw two of the biggest reasons the Royals have not made a postseason appearance since that magical October of 1985. First, Howser's untimely death cut short what might have been a very good managerial career. In one full season with the Yankees and four with the Royals, he had won three division titles and a World Series. Yes, managers probably do not make that much difference in a team's record, but after Howser, the Royals began a managerial procession of retreads (Billy Gardner, Buddy Bell), former Royals from the "glory days" (John Wathan, Hal McRae), possibly crazy people (Bob Boone, Tony Pena Sr.), and uninspiring Eeyore types (Tony Muser, Buddy Bell). With Howser still in the dugout, perhaps some of the second- and third-place finishes over the next few years would become division titles. We'll never know, of course.
Also, after the 1986 season, the Royals traded away two young pitchers to try to fortify an offense that had been next to last in the league in runs scored. First, they sent Scott Bankhead to Seattle for outfielder Danny Tartabull. That move worked out well for the Royals. Second, they sent David Cone to the Mets for catcher Ed Hearn. That move would haunt the Royals for years. Had Cone been a part of the Royals in the late '80s and early '90s, perhaps they could have won another division title or two. And they might not have signed Mark Davis and Storm Davis as free agents after the 1989 season. That may or may not be foreshadowing for the next installment of this series...
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Most Disappointing Royals Season? Part I: 1983
Before I start, this bit of genius just has to be pointed out: Dayton Moore vs. Insanity Wolf. Go on, read it. I'll wait.
OK. As I said before, I really started following the Royals in 1983. So I suppose that season wasn't that much of a disappointment to me--I didn't know any better. But I imagine to someone who had been a Royals fan prior to that season, 1983 was a real bummer of a summer, as Ned Flanders might say.
The 1982 Royals went 90-72 and were in the division race all the way to the end. In fact, they were tied for the division lead on Sept. 19, then got swept in a three-game series by the Angels, who ended up winning the division by three games. They suffered no major losses in the offseason (except trading a minor leaguer named Cecil Fielder to Toronto for outfielder Leon Roberts--ugh). So although I don't really remember it, I assume the Royals were expected to contend in 1983.
Of course, that didn't happen. Well, it did somewhat. On August 10, the Royals were five games behind Chicago despite being only 54-55 on the year. At a time when the Royals needed to get hot, it was instead the White Sox who caught fire, going 39-12 the rest of the way and starting my lifelong disdain for the Pale Hose. The Royals ended up in second place, but were under .500 at 79-83 and 20 games behind Chicago.
So what happened? Looking at the stats from 1982 to 1983, I think it was a combination of key players getting old in a hurry and injuries taking down the staff ace. Plus, apparently some other important players had a drug problem...more on that shortly.
The '83 season was the last year in a Royals uniform for one of the best players in team history, Amos Otis. After hitting .286 with 11 homers and 88 RBIs in 125 games in 1982, AO could only manage .261, 4 and 41 in 98 games in 1983. One thing I regret as a Royals fan is that I did not get to see Otis play in his prime--I think he would have been fun to watch. But in 1983, he was struggling.
On the pitching side, Larry Gura went from an 18-12 mark in '82 to a league-leading 18 losses in '83. His ERA jumped almost a full run, from 4.03 to 4.90, while his K/BB ratio went from 98:64 to 57:76. Yep, he walked almost 20 more than he struck out. And still the Royals let him start 31 games and pitch 200 innings. Gura would have a slight bounceback in 1984, going 12-9 despite an unsightly 5.18 ERA. But he was essentially done after 1982, and the Royals couldn't make up for it elsewhere--the young pitchers who would be an important part of the 1984 and 1985 titles just weren't quite ready.
The Royals may have been able to absorb Gura's decline had Dennis Leonard pitched all year. Although Gura got the Opening Day start, I think Leonard would have been considered the staff ace after winning 20 games three times in his eight previous full seasons. But on May 28, his career was derailed when he ruptured his patellar tendon while pitching to Cal Ripken. Leonard would make a valiant comeback and pitch again for the Royals in 1985 and 1986, but his injury helped torpedo the Royals' 1983 season.
Finally, the thing I imagine the 1983 season is most remembered for actually happened after the season. In mid-October, outfielders Willie Wilson and Jerry Martin, first baseman Willie Aikens and pitcher Vida Blue were arrested and charged with misdeameanors related to possession of cocaine. Blue had been released by the Royals in August, but the other three were still on the roster at the time. Martin became a free agent after the season and ended up with the Mets; while Aikens would be traded to the Blue Jays for Jorge Orta, who of course was involved in perhaps the most famous play in franchise history. Wilson would be suspended for the 1984 season by then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn, but on appeal that was reduced to the first month-and-a-half of the '84 campaign. All four players served 81 days in federal prison.
At the time, I'm sure this was a big scandal, at least as big as it could be without the prevalence of ESPN and 24-hour news channels, and without the existence of websites, to let us know how these men had destroyed our innocence. As it turned out, cocaine was a widespread problem in baseball, and let's face it, in the early '80s there were a lot of cocaine problems in all of society. So thankfully, this episode is more or less a footnote in baseball history, although it is a bigger part of Royals history.
Out of the ashes of the 1983 season, though, the Royals would win the division in 1984, and of course win it all in 1985. One thing about the '83 season, it gave the Royals a chance to start clearing out some of the veterans who had starred on the great teams of the late '70s. Youngsters like Saberhagen, Jackson, Gubicza, Motley, Sheridan, Balboni and Leibrandt would move into important roles and the Royals would quickly reap the benefits.
OK. As I said before, I really started following the Royals in 1983. So I suppose that season wasn't that much of a disappointment to me--I didn't know any better. But I imagine to someone who had been a Royals fan prior to that season, 1983 was a real bummer of a summer, as Ned Flanders might say.
The 1982 Royals went 90-72 and were in the division race all the way to the end. In fact, they were tied for the division lead on Sept. 19, then got swept in a three-game series by the Angels, who ended up winning the division by three games. They suffered no major losses in the offseason (except trading a minor leaguer named Cecil Fielder to Toronto for outfielder Leon Roberts--ugh). So although I don't really remember it, I assume the Royals were expected to contend in 1983.
Of course, that didn't happen. Well, it did somewhat. On August 10, the Royals were five games behind Chicago despite being only 54-55 on the year. At a time when the Royals needed to get hot, it was instead the White Sox who caught fire, going 39-12 the rest of the way and starting my lifelong disdain for the Pale Hose. The Royals ended up in second place, but were under .500 at 79-83 and 20 games behind Chicago.
So what happened? Looking at the stats from 1982 to 1983, I think it was a combination of key players getting old in a hurry and injuries taking down the staff ace. Plus, apparently some other important players had a drug problem...more on that shortly.
The '83 season was the last year in a Royals uniform for one of the best players in team history, Amos Otis. After hitting .286 with 11 homers and 88 RBIs in 125 games in 1982, AO could only manage .261, 4 and 41 in 98 games in 1983. One thing I regret as a Royals fan is that I did not get to see Otis play in his prime--I think he would have been fun to watch. But in 1983, he was struggling.
On the pitching side, Larry Gura went from an 18-12 mark in '82 to a league-leading 18 losses in '83. His ERA jumped almost a full run, from 4.03 to 4.90, while his K/BB ratio went from 98:64 to 57:76. Yep, he walked almost 20 more than he struck out. And still the Royals let him start 31 games and pitch 200 innings. Gura would have a slight bounceback in 1984, going 12-9 despite an unsightly 5.18 ERA. But he was essentially done after 1982, and the Royals couldn't make up for it elsewhere--the young pitchers who would be an important part of the 1984 and 1985 titles just weren't quite ready.
The Royals may have been able to absorb Gura's decline had Dennis Leonard pitched all year. Although Gura got the Opening Day start, I think Leonard would have been considered the staff ace after winning 20 games three times in his eight previous full seasons. But on May 28, his career was derailed when he ruptured his patellar tendon while pitching to Cal Ripken. Leonard would make a valiant comeback and pitch again for the Royals in 1985 and 1986, but his injury helped torpedo the Royals' 1983 season.
Finally, the thing I imagine the 1983 season is most remembered for actually happened after the season. In mid-October, outfielders Willie Wilson and Jerry Martin, first baseman Willie Aikens and pitcher Vida Blue were arrested and charged with misdeameanors related to possession of cocaine. Blue had been released by the Royals in August, but the other three were still on the roster at the time. Martin became a free agent after the season and ended up with the Mets; while Aikens would be traded to the Blue Jays for Jorge Orta, who of course was involved in perhaps the most famous play in franchise history. Wilson would be suspended for the 1984 season by then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn, but on appeal that was reduced to the first month-and-a-half of the '84 campaign. All four players served 81 days in federal prison.
At the time, I'm sure this was a big scandal, at least as big as it could be without the prevalence of ESPN and 24-hour news channels, and without the existence of websites, to let us know how these men had destroyed our innocence. As it turned out, cocaine was a widespread problem in baseball, and let's face it, in the early '80s there were a lot of cocaine problems in all of society. So thankfully, this episode is more or less a footnote in baseball history, although it is a bigger part of Royals history.
Out of the ashes of the 1983 season, though, the Royals would win the division in 1984, and of course win it all in 1985. One thing about the '83 season, it gave the Royals a chance to start clearing out some of the veterans who had starred on the great teams of the late '70s. Youngsters like Saberhagen, Jackson, Gubicza, Motley, Sheridan, Balboni and Leibrandt would move into important roles and the Royals would quickly reap the benefits.
Friday, October 30, 2009
I’ve Just Returned From The Salt, Salt Sea
…and it’s all for the love of thee
(From "House Carpenter," The Bootleg Series Vol. 1-3)
I’m still here. Apologies, loyal readers (both of you), I didn’t mean to go so long between posts. I was planning a season wrap-up, but we had a lovely vacation in Florida the week after the season ended. It’s hard to get excited about rehashing a disappointing season when you’re looking at this:
(From "House Carpenter," The Bootleg Series Vol. 1-3)
I’m still here. Apologies, loyal readers (both of you), I didn’t mean to go so long between posts. I was planning a season wrap-up, but we had a lovely vacation in Florida the week after the season ended. It’s hard to get excited about rehashing a disappointing season when you’re looking at this:
Anyway, after some consideration, I decided against a wrap-up. Personally, this may be the most disappointing season I’ve lived through as a Royals fan, and that’s saying something. Perhaps 2004 is the only one that could rival this one. I suppose 1986 would merit consideration, as would 1990. Of course, back then we expected the Royals to be really good; we weren’t just hoping they could have everything break right and contend in a mediocre division.
Not to appoint myself as Royals historian (Royals Retrospective does a great job of that), but let’s break down the most disappointing seasons in Royals history. Let’s define “disappointing” in regards to preseason expectations—sure, 2005 and 2006 were awful, but I think every Royals fan went into those seasons just hoping not to lose 100 games. And I’ll limit this to seasons since I became a Royals fan—I consider 1983 to be the first year I was really paying attention. But really, the years before that were building a good team, then watching that good team kick AL West butt. Off the top of my head, about the only year in there that would be disappointing would be 1979 (a second-place finish after three straight division titles and Whitey Herzog getting fired).
So here’s the plan: I’ve picked what I consider to be the four other most disappointing seasons in Royals history. I’ll write a separate recap of each season and then put up a poll. I will then petition baseball-reference.com to remove all vestiges of the most disappointing Royals season ever.
OK, maybe not. But I am interested to find out what you all think. I've also thought up a couple of (I hope) fun features to add for the offseason, and of course if the Royals make any moves this winter, I'll sound off on those, too.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
I Thought Some Of 'Em Were Friends Of Mine
...I was wrong about 'em all
(From "Cold Irons Bound," Time Out Of Mind)
You can't blame Zack Greinke if he feels that way about his teammates. For me, and I'm sure for most Royals fans, this season can't end fast enough. There is a lot of bitterness out there--just read any game thread on Royals Review, or consider the hiatus a normally mild-mannered sort like Rany has self-imposed. I'm not going to point fingers at anyone who wants to stop paying attention to this team for a while, or question their fandom. That's your choice, and I can't blame you--it is harder every day to care about this franchise and their unique mixture of incompetence and arrogance.
But there is one remaining reason to pay at least a little attention to the rest of this season, and that is Greinke's quest for a Cy Young award. Of course, winning the award isn't going to make this disappointing season any easier to take, but I think every Royals fan is hoping that Zack will win a nice shiny trophy for his trophy case and be recognized for what he is: the best pitcher in the American League in 2009. It would be the capper on a great story, and I think we all believe Zack deserves something special for pitching so well for the worst team in the AL.
However, there is concern that the media types who vote for these awards will look at Zack's rather paltry win total (13) and decide somehow that CC Sabathia or Justin Verlander or Roy Halladay must be better, simply by having more wins.
You and I know (probably) that wins are a terrible way to measure a pitcher. If the Royals have done nothing else this year, they have certainly provided Exhibit A in the case against the Pitcher Wins stat. How can a pitcher lead the league in ERA, WHIP and shutouts and be near the lead in strikeouts, innings pitched and complete games and not even get close to 20 wins? When he playes for a low-scoring team that can't catch the ball. And of course, neither of those factors are things Zack can control.
Zack has made 29 starts this year, and the Royals have put together a total of 101 runs in those games, an average of 3.48 runs per game. Even for the Royals' pathetic offense, this is below average; KC is scoring 4.08 runs per game overall this year. I went through Zack's game logs for this season and tried to figure out what his record would be if the Royals could have just scored 4 runs per game for him (mind you, league average is 4.83 R/G, so this isn't even giving him averag support). For this exercise, I supposed the Royals had a "4" on the scoreboard when Zack left and the bullpen work stayed the same, no matter how crappy it was.
Unsurprisingly, the Cy Young race would be over. Zack would be 18-3. The Royals would be 18-8 when he pitches (with three times where the opponent ended up with 4 runs), instead of their pathetic 14-15 record in his starts, so they'd have at least 4 more wins this year.
Under these same conditions, Halladay would be 15-5 (he's currently 14-9), Sabathia would be 16-6 (he's currently 16-7), and Verlander would be 17-4 (currently 16-8). So none of these guys have suffered as much from a crappy offense as Zack has. For further evidence, look at their run support: Sabathia has received 5.73 R/G, Halladay 4.86 R/G, and Verlander 4.63 R/G. They're all getting at least 1 more run per start than Greinke.
And of course, Zack has put together this amazing season with one more disadvantage: unlike those other three, Greinke has not had one start against the league's second-most feeble offense, measured in runs. That would be the guys dressing in the same locker room as he is. When he faced the only AL offense to score fewer runs than the Royals, he tossed perhaps his most dominant game, a 1-hit shutout of Seattle. Coincidentally, that was the last time Zack got a win. Since then, in two starts, he's given up 2 runs (1 earned) in 15 innings. His mates have backed him up with a total of 3 runs, and it took 23 innings to manage that.
I am about 75% certain the voters will do the right thing and give Zack his Cy Young award. But that's only because no pitcher in the AL this year is piling up wins. With a win today, Sabathia took the league lead over Verlander (and Scott Feldman of Texas) at 17. It looks like Greinke will get 4 more starts this year. If the Royals can just squeeze out a few runs for him and he gets to 15 or 16 wins, that ought to be enough. I hope. It would help if no one makes it to 20, since I'm afraid the old-fashioned types voting for the award couldn't resist the pull of a nice round number.
(From "Cold Irons Bound," Time Out Of Mind)
You can't blame Zack Greinke if he feels that way about his teammates. For me, and I'm sure for most Royals fans, this season can't end fast enough. There is a lot of bitterness out there--just read any game thread on Royals Review, or consider the hiatus a normally mild-mannered sort like Rany has self-imposed. I'm not going to point fingers at anyone who wants to stop paying attention to this team for a while, or question their fandom. That's your choice, and I can't blame you--it is harder every day to care about this franchise and their unique mixture of incompetence and arrogance.
But there is one remaining reason to pay at least a little attention to the rest of this season, and that is Greinke's quest for a Cy Young award. Of course, winning the award isn't going to make this disappointing season any easier to take, but I think every Royals fan is hoping that Zack will win a nice shiny trophy for his trophy case and be recognized for what he is: the best pitcher in the American League in 2009. It would be the capper on a great story, and I think we all believe Zack deserves something special for pitching so well for the worst team in the AL.
However, there is concern that the media types who vote for these awards will look at Zack's rather paltry win total (13) and decide somehow that CC Sabathia or Justin Verlander or Roy Halladay must be better, simply by having more wins.
You and I know (probably) that wins are a terrible way to measure a pitcher. If the Royals have done nothing else this year, they have certainly provided Exhibit A in the case against the Pitcher Wins stat. How can a pitcher lead the league in ERA, WHIP and shutouts and be near the lead in strikeouts, innings pitched and complete games and not even get close to 20 wins? When he playes for a low-scoring team that can't catch the ball. And of course, neither of those factors are things Zack can control.
Zack has made 29 starts this year, and the Royals have put together a total of 101 runs in those games, an average of 3.48 runs per game. Even for the Royals' pathetic offense, this is below average; KC is scoring 4.08 runs per game overall this year. I went through Zack's game logs for this season and tried to figure out what his record would be if the Royals could have just scored 4 runs per game for him (mind you, league average is 4.83 R/G, so this isn't even giving him averag support). For this exercise, I supposed the Royals had a "4" on the scoreboard when Zack left and the bullpen work stayed the same, no matter how crappy it was.
Unsurprisingly, the Cy Young race would be over. Zack would be 18-3. The Royals would be 18-8 when he pitches (with three times where the opponent ended up with 4 runs), instead of their pathetic 14-15 record in his starts, so they'd have at least 4 more wins this year.
Under these same conditions, Halladay would be 15-5 (he's currently 14-9), Sabathia would be 16-6 (he's currently 16-7), and Verlander would be 17-4 (currently 16-8). So none of these guys have suffered as much from a crappy offense as Zack has. For further evidence, look at their run support: Sabathia has received 5.73 R/G, Halladay 4.86 R/G, and Verlander 4.63 R/G. They're all getting at least 1 more run per start than Greinke.
And of course, Zack has put together this amazing season with one more disadvantage: unlike those other three, Greinke has not had one start against the league's second-most feeble offense, measured in runs. That would be the guys dressing in the same locker room as he is. When he faced the only AL offense to score fewer runs than the Royals, he tossed perhaps his most dominant game, a 1-hit shutout of Seattle. Coincidentally, that was the last time Zack got a win. Since then, in two starts, he's given up 2 runs (1 earned) in 15 innings. His mates have backed him up with a total of 3 runs, and it took 23 innings to manage that.
I am about 75% certain the voters will do the right thing and give Zack his Cy Young award. But that's only because no pitcher in the AL this year is piling up wins. With a win today, Sabathia took the league lead over Verlander (and Scott Feldman of Texas) at 17. It looks like Greinke will get 4 more starts this year. If the Royals can just squeeze out a few runs for him and he gets to 15 or 16 wins, that ought to be enough. I hope. It would help if no one makes it to 20, since I'm afraid the old-fashioned types voting for the award couldn't resist the pull of a nice round number.
Monday, August 17, 2009
There's No Success Like Failure
...and that failure's no success at all.
(From "Love Minus Zero/No Limit," Bringing It All Back Home)
Interesting and revealing quote from the Star this morning about Brayan Pena:
This is exactly the problem the Royals have now and have been re-enacting for 15 years (at least). They never fully commit to finding out what their young players can do, preferring instead to sign veterans and hope those players can have some sort of career year. If not, at least they're theoretically solid players.
The problem with this process is that the Royals are never going to be able to afford difference-making veterans, so the guys they end up getting are usually on the decline. Even worse, they block the Royals from finding out if they have any worthwhile prospects. And they seem to fill the front office with false hope, the odd idea that the team is a few players away and a .500 record is the goal.
Frankly, I'm tired of the Royals shooting for a .500 record. That doesn't get you anything. Even in the AL Central. Yes, the Royals need to get to .500 before they can be a winning team, but the goal is and always should be a World Series title. Quit building teams that might be .500 if things go well and start trying to win. Let's not forget, this year's team was supposed to be one that would be around .500 and "maybe contend if things go well." Instead, things have gone straight to hell, and the Royals are likely not going to be much better record-wise than their 2005-2006 predecessors.
If the Royals are going to stink, I'd rather they do it with young players. I don't mean I want them to call up Eric Hosmer and Mike Moustakas, but could we at least see Kila Ka'aihue instead of Mike Jacobs or Jose Guillen? Last year, when the Royals made Ka'aihue a September callup, they still managed to ignore him, only letting him play in 12 games and get 24 plate appearances. They did this so Ross Gload could keep playing, apparently.
Now the Royals are giving Brayan Pena the same treatment. Right now, there are 3 Royal hitters on the roster with an OPS+ better than 100. Billy Butler and Alberto Callaspo get to play all the time and hit in the middle of the order. The other guy? He has fewer plate appearances this season than Tony Pena Jr. and Luis Hernandez combined (those would be OPS+ numbers of 19 and -33, respectively). He has roughly half the plate appearances of Mitch Maier (75 OPS+). Even worse, he has a fourth of the combined plate appearances of Olivo and John Buck (93 and 77 OPS+, respectively). Ladies and gentlemen, Brayan Pena. A
Can Brayan sustain that offense if he plays every day? I don't know (although his minor league numbers look consistently good). But shouldn't the Royals try to find out? This team needs to find undervalued talent wherever they can, so they can save what money they do have to see if they can sign an actual difference-maker or two. Buck is making $2.9 million this year, and Olivo is making $2.7 million. Pena is making $405,000 and outhitting them both.
One other thing about Hillman's quote above: yes, Olivo does have a decent power output this year--if you look at home runs. Olivo leads the team in homers with 16. Yet he only has 12 doubles (and 4 triples). Even though is slugging percentage is a respectable .473, his on-base percentage is low (.272). The man has walked 9 times in 86 games. And yes, Olivo has been good against base-stealers this year, nailing 30% of them (the league average is 24%). But Olivo also has made 6 errors, allowed 10 passed balls, and is the main catcher for a team with 67 wild pitches this year, which leads the AL by almost 20. Pena's defense is supposed to be suspect, but once again, this is something the Royals need to find out before the end of the season.
Win ballgames? Sure, the Royals should try to do that the rest of the year. Put forth a professional effort and all that. But who's to say they wouldn't have a better chance with Pena playing more often?
(From "Love Minus Zero/No Limit," Bringing It All Back Home)
Interesting and revealing quote from the Star this morning about Brayan Pena:
"...manager Trey Hillman continues to insist:
'By the end of this season, I want to be able to accurately answer the question of whether we think he can be a front-line guy or is he what he is right now — a backup, a bat off the bench and an occasional DH. He gives you a great (at-bat).'
That prompts the question: Why not play Peña at least four or five times a week over the final seven weeks to provide an answer?
'The argument against that,' Hillman said, 'is (the desire) to continue utilizing a guy who has a lot of power production and helps generate runs and throws out base stealers better when you’re playing teams that do run in a Miguel Olivo.
'That’s the argument. And trying to go with the difficult balance of, yeah, you’d like to find that out (about Peña) but, at the same time, you’d like to win ballgames.' "
This is exactly the problem the Royals have now and have been re-enacting for 15 years (at least). They never fully commit to finding out what their young players can do, preferring instead to sign veterans and hope those players can have some sort of career year. If not, at least they're theoretically solid players.
The problem with this process is that the Royals are never going to be able to afford difference-making veterans, so the guys they end up getting are usually on the decline. Even worse, they block the Royals from finding out if they have any worthwhile prospects. And they seem to fill the front office with false hope, the odd idea that the team is a few players away and a .500 record is the goal.
Frankly, I'm tired of the Royals shooting for a .500 record. That doesn't get you anything. Even in the AL Central. Yes, the Royals need to get to .500 before they can be a winning team, but the goal is and always should be a World Series title. Quit building teams that might be .500 if things go well and start trying to win. Let's not forget, this year's team was supposed to be one that would be around .500 and "maybe contend if things go well." Instead, things have gone straight to hell, and the Royals are likely not going to be much better record-wise than their 2005-2006 predecessors.
If the Royals are going to stink, I'd rather they do it with young players. I don't mean I want them to call up Eric Hosmer and Mike Moustakas, but could we at least see Kila Ka'aihue instead of Mike Jacobs or Jose Guillen? Last year, when the Royals made Ka'aihue a September callup, they still managed to ignore him, only letting him play in 12 games and get 24 plate appearances. They did this so Ross Gload could keep playing, apparently.
Now the Royals are giving Brayan Pena the same treatment. Right now, there are 3 Royal hitters on the roster with an OPS+ better than 100. Billy Butler and Alberto Callaspo get to play all the time and hit in the middle of the order. The other guy? He has fewer plate appearances this season than Tony Pena Jr. and Luis Hernandez combined (those would be OPS+ numbers of 19 and -33, respectively). He has roughly half the plate appearances of Mitch Maier (75 OPS+). Even worse, he has a fourth of the combined plate appearances of Olivo and John Buck (93 and 77 OPS+, respectively). Ladies and gentlemen, Brayan Pena. A
Can Brayan sustain that offense if he plays every day? I don't know (although his minor league numbers look consistently good). But shouldn't the Royals try to find out? This team needs to find undervalued talent wherever they can, so they can save what money they do have to see if they can sign an actual difference-maker or two. Buck is making $2.9 million this year, and Olivo is making $2.7 million. Pena is making $405,000 and outhitting them both.
One other thing about Hillman's quote above: yes, Olivo does have a decent power output this year--if you look at home runs. Olivo leads the team in homers with 16. Yet he only has 12 doubles (and 4 triples). Even though is slugging percentage is a respectable .473, his on-base percentage is low (.272). The man has walked 9 times in 86 games. And yes, Olivo has been good against base-stealers this year, nailing 30% of them (the league average is 24%). But Olivo also has made 6 errors, allowed 10 passed balls, and is the main catcher for a team with 67 wild pitches this year, which leads the AL by almost 20. Pena's defense is supposed to be suspect, but once again, this is something the Royals need to find out before the end of the season.
Win ballgames? Sure, the Royals should try to do that the rest of the year. Put forth a professional effort and all that. But who's to say they wouldn't have a better chance with Pena playing more often?
Monday, August 3, 2009
When You Gonna Wake Up
...and strengthen the things that remain?
(From "When You Gonna Wake Up," Slow Train Coming)
I was off work last Friday, the non-waiver trade deadline for major league baseball. I was pretty excited to be able to follow along as all the big trades were made, and I was anxious to see what the Royals would do to improve the organization. Obviously, with the major league team in freefall, I did not expect them to add pieces at the major league level, but I was hoping that the Royals could improve the upper levels of the minor league system, which is not exactly teeming with prospects. Baseball America's ranking of the Royals' top 10 prospects last fall included only two players who are at Omaha this season, Kila Ka'aihue and Carlos Rosa.
Instead, the Royals chose to stand pat. Well, that's not entirely true, since they did pick up Josh Anderson, an outfielder whom Detroit had waived. However, Anderson's .282 on-base percentage and .315 slugging percentage do not have me expecting great things. Anyway, the Royals had some trading chips, but did not cash them in.
Obviously, we out here in bloggerland don't know what offers the Royals entertained, or what trades they proposed. Perhaps they were aggressively shopping players but were not offered enough in return. The bottom line is, they didn't get anything done, and the roster remains essentially unchanged from the group that has gone 23-53 since May 7 (that's the worst record in baseball in that timeframe, by the way).
Even worse, the Royals didn't even provide themselves with any payroll flexibility for the coming offseason. According to the awesome Cot's MLB contracts website, the Royals have $51.6 million in payroll obligations for next season, with 10 players eligible for arbitration (meaning their salaries will almost certainly be going up). Since the team's payroll is supposedly maxed out at this year's $70 million, it looks like the Royals will be bringing pretty much the same team back next year. So, if you believe the 29 games at the start of the season were the "real" Royals and the 76 games since have been a fluke, you should be thrilled. On the other hand, if you have a basic grasp of logic and statistics, you are wondering what the 2011 Royals will look like.
This is yet another reason I wish the Royals had really tried to get younger (and a little cheaper for some flexibility in the next couple of offseasons). Take a look at the team's active roster. Go on, I'll wait. OK, note that there are 10 players born in the 1970s. That's not a knock on the 70s--I was born during that decade. But I'm not a major league player, and therefore exiting my prime years as an athlete like those guys are. It's a sad fact of baseball life: you peak around age 27, have a few years just under that level, then start the decline. Obviously, there are exceptions, but that's the general rule.
Compare the Royals to a team with a similar record this year, a similar market size, and a similar recent history: the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Pirates were very active before the trade deadline, making 4 trades in the days leading up to July 31, plus a couple more earlier this season. As a result of those trades, Pittsburgh now has an active roster with ONE player who was born in the 1970s. Most of the Pirates are 24-25 years old now, meaning their best years are at least theoretically ahead of them. If I were a Pirate fan, I would be excited about the next few years.
The Royals have a decent core of players who are approaching age 27, but not nearly enough. Here's who I would consider that core: Brian Bannister, Billy Butler, Alex Gordon, Zack Greinke, Luke Hochevar, Joakim Soria. And you could throw Alberto Callaspo in there, too. The sad thing is, Bannister is 27 now and Greinke and Hochevar turn 26 this year. The Royals need to find ways to build around this core, and they need to do it soon. Or we'll be looking forward to 2015.
(From "When You Gonna Wake Up," Slow Train Coming)
I was off work last Friday, the non-waiver trade deadline for major league baseball. I was pretty excited to be able to follow along as all the big trades were made, and I was anxious to see what the Royals would do to improve the organization. Obviously, with the major league team in freefall, I did not expect them to add pieces at the major league level, but I was hoping that the Royals could improve the upper levels of the minor league system, which is not exactly teeming with prospects. Baseball America's ranking of the Royals' top 10 prospects last fall included only two players who are at Omaha this season, Kila Ka'aihue and Carlos Rosa.
Instead, the Royals chose to stand pat. Well, that's not entirely true, since they did pick up Josh Anderson, an outfielder whom Detroit had waived. However, Anderson's .282 on-base percentage and .315 slugging percentage do not have me expecting great things. Anyway, the Royals had some trading chips, but did not cash them in.
Obviously, we out here in bloggerland don't know what offers the Royals entertained, or what trades they proposed. Perhaps they were aggressively shopping players but were not offered enough in return. The bottom line is, they didn't get anything done, and the roster remains essentially unchanged from the group that has gone 23-53 since May 7 (that's the worst record in baseball in that timeframe, by the way).
Even worse, the Royals didn't even provide themselves with any payroll flexibility for the coming offseason. According to the awesome Cot's MLB contracts website, the Royals have $51.6 million in payroll obligations for next season, with 10 players eligible for arbitration (meaning their salaries will almost certainly be going up). Since the team's payroll is supposedly maxed out at this year's $70 million, it looks like the Royals will be bringing pretty much the same team back next year. So, if you believe the 29 games at the start of the season were the "real" Royals and the 76 games since have been a fluke, you should be thrilled. On the other hand, if you have a basic grasp of logic and statistics, you are wondering what the 2011 Royals will look like.
This is yet another reason I wish the Royals had really tried to get younger (and a little cheaper for some flexibility in the next couple of offseasons). Take a look at the team's active roster. Go on, I'll wait. OK, note that there are 10 players born in the 1970s. That's not a knock on the 70s--I was born during that decade. But I'm not a major league player, and therefore exiting my prime years as an athlete like those guys are. It's a sad fact of baseball life: you peak around age 27, have a few years just under that level, then start the decline. Obviously, there are exceptions, but that's the general rule.
Compare the Royals to a team with a similar record this year, a similar market size, and a similar recent history: the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Pirates were very active before the trade deadline, making 4 trades in the days leading up to July 31, plus a couple more earlier this season. As a result of those trades, Pittsburgh now has an active roster with ONE player who was born in the 1970s. Most of the Pirates are 24-25 years old now, meaning their best years are at least theoretically ahead of them. If I were a Pirate fan, I would be excited about the next few years.
The Royals have a decent core of players who are approaching age 27, but not nearly enough. Here's who I would consider that core: Brian Bannister, Billy Butler, Alex Gordon, Zack Greinke, Luke Hochevar, Joakim Soria. And you could throw Alberto Callaspo in there, too. The sad thing is, Bannister is 27 now and Greinke and Hochevar turn 26 this year. The Royals need to find ways to build around this core, and they need to do it soon. Or we'll be looking forward to 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
