Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Rany on the Royals

"C'mon."

18 Comments -

1 – 18 of 18
Blogger Adam said...

You lost me when you said the K is a bad place to give up singles. I think the dimensions of all parks are similar ENOUGH that singles are evenly distibuted amongst parks. To be fair, not doubles or triples - those are definitely susceptible to ball park factors.

February 1, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Blogger John said...

Actually, some parks do surrender more singles than others do. Parks where the backdrop behind the mound makes it easy for a batter to pick up the ball tend to allow more hits (including singles), and so do parks with a smaller than normal foul territory, where hitters don't lose at-bats to foulouts. Parks that are above-average in their outfield dimensions also allow an above-average number of hits on balls hit to the outfield, because there's more ground to cover.

Kauffman has the excellent batter's eye and it has the large dimensions. Line-drive hitters who don't swing for the fences have always made hay there, for as long as it's been open. It has always allowed an above-average number of every type of hit except for home runs.

February 1, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Blogger Unknown said...

We know, we know. You hate the Myers trade. But by what definition is Shields a "good #2?" Are you saying that there are 30 MLB pitchers better than Shields right now? Or is your definition of a #1 starter narrower than the actually number of #1 starting spots in the majors?

February 2, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dutton tweeted that the decisions on both Kottaras and Bonifacio were questionable.

Since Dutton's tweets are never off the cuff, I think there is a lot to his comment.

The Royals were set up to have the best bench in the game. No small feat. This is very commendable and something DMGM should take great pride in.

I actually got caught up in the notion that they might actually go with only 11 pitchers also.

I really liked the pickup of Valencia.

With a bench of Dyson, Maxwell, Bonifacio, Valencia and Kottaras that bench has everything. Left handed power, right handed power, speed, and the whole field is covered. And pretty solid defensively too. Not great, but pretty good, especially for bench guys. And as Rany said so well, this is not just a bench, but protection against injury.

And DMGM has established that he has figured out how to use the I-29 corridor to handle the pitching staff as if there is one or two extra guys. Again, that isn't necessarily easy and he has handled that well. Expanded the roster to his advantage.

February 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And then they let go of Kottaras. At the time, Dutton reported it was because of money. I don't think it was ever about money and I don't think Dutton ever did either. Apparently they don't like Kottaras' attitude or something.

Isn't it time to accept a guy who isn't the perfect fit attitude wise because he may have the talent to make your team better?

And the release of Bonifacio also seems to be more about attitude. If it is about money, and maybe it is, but I really hope not. Although if it is then there is no excuse to have both Wade Davis and Luke Hochevar still on the team. But if it is about money, then Rany has clearly explained why that is not acceptable. To totally change the makeup of the bench based on maybe 2MM is so short sighted and misguided that it hurts.

It seems to me to be about the fact that Bonifacio would not accept a part time role.

February 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

He won't accept it. Tough. Aren't there people in place to lead the men on the team and to explain their role and to let them know that there is a greater common goal. Can't someone lead these guys? Why are they afraid of a clubhouse lawyer? Kottaras and Bonifacio can't be so bad that they aren't allowed to be a part of our precious little team. Are the young guys so limited that they have to only have teammates that they look up to and admire?

I know this is about the bench and maybe should not matter so much, but I disagree. Injuries happen, and bench production matters.

DMGM has what has to be considered a great bullpen. Not good, but great. And I know there has to be a little fall off this year, but I don't know that there will be a big one. On paper they are still very, very good, if not great. He has to be commended for that. And he has done it cheaply. This isn't by accident. The front office drafted guys who were relievers in college and let them be relievers. It was a Moneyball way of doing things and it worked. Pretty cool.

He also has to be commended for putting together a lineup that has major league guys at every position to start the year. No more gaping holes. That is also pretty cool. I really like Aoki and Infante.

An even bigger deal is that there are very good defensive players at every position. I won't go so far as to say that there are Gold Glove caliber guys at each spot, but it is close. That is not easy to do. DMGM has done very well at this. It plays to the ballpark to have a good defensive team. The pitchers have to love it. And it is kind of a market inefficiency thing as well as defense is clearly not valued as much as the homerun. So good job on that DMGM.

But why oh why have you allowed character to play such a big role in your decisions about Kottaras and Bonifacio? This is to me a huge mistake and one that could really hold the team back. It is a short coming of DMGM to rely too much on character traits and not enough on the talent.

February 2, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to take up so much space Rany, but thank you for the forum. Your writing is as good as ever. I wish there was more of it, but I understand why there is not, and I hope your family enjoys the additional time.

February 2, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Blogger twm said...

I agree Bryan: The loss of what looked like an amazing bench angers me. Reasons are (mostly) unimportant; this team is not a juggernaut, this team needs to maximize value wherever possible (all teams do, of course, but for a bubble playoff contender it is of the essence), lopping off chunks of an impressive bench and replacing it with questionable talent is appalling. But of course DM's struggles with 25-man roster construction are not new, and as a Royals fan I am pretty well conditioned to expect good things to go bad.

February 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM

Blogger Logan said...

Doug,
I don't think Rany is saying that at all. For many, especially in the scouting community, the term ace or #1 starter only applies to a handful of pitchers in baseball, maybe as few as 5 or as many as a dozen. Saying that Shields is a "good #2" implies that he is still probably a top 20starter in baseball, but not an ace like Kershaw or Felix or Sale or Verlander.

February 3, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Blogger kcghost said...

Putting a proper roster together has never been a GMDM long suit. Most of his problems usually stem from jumping too quick. The signing if Vargas was ludicrous. It looked like the deal was for too much over a too long a period. Now it looks horrendous.

If they thought Bonifacio was going to be a burden in the clubhouse then I get it. If it was just to save a few bucks then another dumb move.

February 3, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

Bryan, I hear you. I tend to make a distinction between "ace" and "#1." There are only a select few whom I would consider "aces" in the game today. But to call a guy a "#2" is to suggest that he should not be the #1 starter on an average MLB team. Every team has a "#1" guy. Few have "aces." Some teams start a guy in teh #1 slot who probably are true #2s. Sounds to me like that's what Rany is saying the Royals have going on. I respectfully disagree--Shields would be the #1 on a lot of teams. Maybe as many as half in the league (or close to it).

February 3, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Blogger Unknown said...

Yes, Doug, Rany continues to go the extra (unnecessary) step in his argument against The Trade to say that James Shields, who has more WAR over the last three seasons than all but 10 pitchers, is not a top-tier starter.
There is no empirical evidence to support that Shields is "merely" a #2.
There is also no reason to say that he is "very good" but not "among the best" if you're trying to further the argument that The Trade shouldn't have gone down. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. We would have needed a "Greinke in 2009" type season to get into the playoffs last year, and that's unreasonable to expect from anyone.
I'd be at a loss why this "Shields is not a #1" narrative continues for that very reason, and would love to hear from Rany, or anybody, how Shields has not earned #1 status.

February 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Blogger Rany said...

I don't want to get into the "#1 vs. #2" argument, guys, except to say that the accepted use of the term "#1" within baseball is NOT to use it for a Top 30 starter, i.e. the best starter on all 30 teams, but for a Top-15 starter at least, i.e. an *above-average* best starter. Some insiders are even more picky about using the term #1. I personally think that the consensus is too conservative, but I'm not going to try to re-define the language.

And in my opinion, Shields falls a little shy of being a Top-15 starter in the game. (He ranked 22nd in bWAR last year, for instance.) That doesn't make me a hater, or imply that I'm still trying to get my digs in about the trade.

February 3, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Blogger Rany said...

My current estimate of the payroll at $89 million assumes a salary of $4.9 million for Holland, which is the estimate that MLB Trade Rumors has made for him. So that number might fluctuate by a few hundred thousand, but not a few million. I should have made that clearer, thanks for asking.

February 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Blogger royalsfan67 said...

Recently James Shields has hinted he would like to resign with the Royals. I have said since the Myers trade, the one thing that would make it a little less painful is if the Royals would actually sign Shields to an extension. With the $18 million going in the bank this year, that money could help pay for a 4 or 5 year extension and we would have an anchor to our staff for years.
I was unhappy with the Vargas signing from the beginning. We have enough arms throughout the organization that the 32 mill could have been spent elsewhere or saved for Shields.

February 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Blogger Unknown said...

Rany, not to carry this point on longer than it should be carried on, but I did some googling, and there doesn't appear to be any consensus on the definition on a #1--at least not that anyone has written. Plenty of talk on what it means to be an "ace," and a lot of that is on Baseball Prospectus. If you are using the terms interchangeably, that's OK. I just tend to make a distinction--"aces" are that rare few you describe. #1s are guys that should be leading a staff. Some teams might have multiple #1s, some may have none at all. I think the Royals have one.

February 4, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Blogger Louie III said...

Yes aces are rare and you're just dragging out an argument that Rany has already answered. I am not in the baseball insider club, but I have seen enough baseball to know shields is not in a conversation about aces.

February 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've got the Royals penciled in at 89 wins. Chen is emblematic of the team's excellent pitching depth but overall mediocrity in the rotation. Unfortunately, they'll need to upgrade the talent somewhere along the way (given the Royals financial MO means dumping/flipping existing contracts instead of taking on additional payroll and good luck getting value for Wade Davis) if they want to get past 90 wins and take the division.

February 25, 2014 at 2:21 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.