Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Rany on the Royals

"Royals Today: 4/21/2008."

16 Comments -

1 – 16 of 16
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Felt the same way about the Poz columns. I swear all the time, especially f-bombs, but somehow it all just felt inappropriate. And the contest I felt was pointless. It was like 2 schoolkids on the playground telling your momma's so fat jokes.

April 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM

Blogger Curtis Ruder said...

Just as I was about to scream on Sunday afternoon as the nth dribbler squeaked through, I remembered what I thought when I first read our schedule. Four weeks ago, if you could have promised me 9-10 heading home, I would have been very happy with it.

There is much work to be done, especially on offense. But except for one inning, I have not been embarrassed to be watching the Royals. Which is something. (And even good teams have embarrassing innings like the fiasco Friday night in Oakland, right?

April 22, 2008 at 8:01 AM

Blogger Rany said...

Hey, don't get me wrong: I enjoyed the Swear-Off tremendously. I just think it's incredibly funny that Poz would run it. Just when you think you know a guy...

April 22, 2008 at 8:12 AM

Blogger kcghost said...

Penelope Ann Miller was the heroine in the 1994 flick "The Shadow".

April 22, 2008 at 9:06 AM

Blogger Christian M said...

Poz let me down on that one...what was he thinking?

April 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think focusing on production from the 9 hole in a start Pena or Callaspo debate is like figuring out which crack to plug with your finger while the entire middle of the dam has collapsed. The Royals need to plug Butler in at first base and deal with any defensive problems, and they need to go out and pick up Frank Thomas. They have to get another solid bat in the middle of the lineup.

1 - Gathright/DeJesus
2 - Grudzielanek
3 - Gordon
4 - Thomas
5 - Guillen
6 - Butler
7 - Teahen
8 - Buck
9 - Pena/Callaspo

April 22, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

Since I just read your interview on Mellinger's Royals blog, I will give the characteristic reprimand for not seeing you in a couple days now. I reload your site for updates more than any other site I think.

Since everyone seems focused on the part of your blog that doesn't have to do with the Royals, I'll talk about the part that does.

I spent the first 8 years of my life in Baltimore so I got to see Belanger and Weaver and even the last couple of years of Brooks Robinson. Your reference to Belanger brought back memories. Living there, I don't remember any of the fans really bashing Belanger that much although I was young at the time. They crucified Decinces(sp?)when he took over for Robinson.

The thing that I was getting to is that even though I'm not the stathead that you are Rany, I came up with the same basic conclusion on Pena and wrote a comment on your last post about it. I also have always looked at Weaver as one of the best managers ever btw.

Based on the lack of hitting of this team and the difference in fielding and hitting of Callaspo, I have seen no reason to make that change. So what if Callaspo is destined for second base. It's not like we wouldn't be able to stick Pena down to the minors. So he doesn't have any options left. Tell me the team that will claim him off waivers?

Yes, Pena is the better fielder but so far, I have not seen Callaspo as being so bad that he is not someone you would want to stick in the field. Simply the fact that he doesn't strike out and Pena doesn't walk would make up for any fielding difference.

A final point about your post. I think that using defensive efficieny as a relevant stat this early in the season is more or less useless. Too small a sample size to really say anything about it at this point I would think. Also, I think the fact that we are not making errors on the balls we do get to is a plus if our def eff does not change. In addition, with Pena not even touching some popups hit to him that has to change our def eff by like 150 points or so.(just kidding)I'm kind of surprised you used such a stat at this point in the year.

April 22, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Blogger chrisc said...

I agree, the Royals should go after Frank Thomas and start him at 1b everyday.

April 22, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, felt the same way about Penelope Ann Miller and her breasts showcase in Carlito's Way.

Just shocking! Shocking!

Unfortunately, unless she's featured in Poz' movie debut soon, that'll be my lasting impression of her. Shocking ends to innocence.

April 22, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The great things about stats is you can use them to prove any point you want. The truth is Royals as good as they have been the first half of April are doing it right. Behind Pitching first, Offense second. Unlike in 2003 when we won all of those 10-9 walk off games to start the season. This team seems to be building for the long haul and there is hope brewing for the future. The games that Billy played at first base this season I didn't see anything wrong with his play. He seemed like he was in control of himself. Now he probably wouldn't of gotten to a couple of balls that Gload did, but I for the life of me can't figure out what the facination is with Gload. I would much rather see Barry Bonds DH than Frank Thomas. And playing Thomas at First Base would be a joke. For the few games a year that we play Interleague games, Bonds could play left Field and we can still play Butler at first. Teahan could move to Center.

But this team is reminding me of the 94 Royals. The last great Royals team we saw in KC. Pitching was the key that Year behind David Cone and Kevin Appier. With Guts and Grit with the G-Men Giatti and Gagne. Speed on the bases with Coleman and McRae. All we are missing is a true leader behind the plate like McFarland and this team would be very similar to the '94 team.
Hal McRae never got the credit he deserved for that team. If my memory serves me right we were only 2 games out of first before the strike hit.

April 22, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate it when intelligent analysts who actually understand baseball statistics draw any conclusions from two weeks of data:

"A few days ago I pointed out the Royals’ great defensive efficiency and wondered if the improvement was for real given that the defense was substantially similar to last year’s. Well, I think we know now: it’s not."

What do we "know now" after two weeks? We didn't "know" anything after one week. We don't "know" anything after two weeks. Maybe we should wait until we have a statistically significant sample size before we try to draw conclusions? You think?

April 22, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Blogger Shelby said...

Hey Anonymous (if that is your real name): I'm no statistician, but I'd say 1/12 of a season is statistically significant.

April 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM

Blogger Shelby said...

Furthermore, when a polling agency takes some sort of nationwide poll, their sample size is something on the order of 1000 - 5000......far, far less than 1/12 of the nation.

Granted, their means of making data statistically significant involves, among other things, demographic considerations. This is unnecessary for deriving statistical truth from baseball teams and such, though, so perhaps my analogy isn't, erm, analogous.

April 22, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Shelby, before you submit your opinions on other people's statistical views, you might want to make sure your OWN figures are correct. Unless the Royals are playing 228 games this year, they are actually a lot further than 1/12th done with the season. After two more games, they'll be more than 1/8th of the way finished.

April 22, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Blogger Shelby said...

Okay Anonymous, my mistake....if that's the case, then the sample size is much larger, so then my argument seems stronger.

1/8 of the season.....how is this NOT a significant slice? How much data do you think is needed in order to make a meaningful inference? 50%? 75%?

"September 1st, 2008----Baseball experts have finally seen enough of the Royals to declare that their pitching staff (is/is not) effective this season."

April 22, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Statistical Significance

You can't compare one eight of a baseball season to how a political exit poll is conducted, for one simple reason:

The baseball season is dynamic, with the compisition of each team, the schedule, and other factors having the potential to drastically alter the outcome of future contests.

The political exit poll, on the other hand, is a RANDOM sample of a statistically significant number of voters. This can easily be accomplished by the proper sampling of a FAR smaller # of voters.

You could accomplish the same thing in baseball, if at the END of the season, you RANDOMLY selected x number of games and extrapolated a season W-L record from that.

My point is that using the FIRST 18 or 20 games played is NOT RANDOM - no more so than polling the first x number of voters coming out of the polling place would be.

April 23, 2008 at 2:43 PM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

This blog does not allow anonymous comments.

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.