(New NEW) 2014 Royals Repository

[SPchief]

Let's get back sole possession tonight.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Well yeah, but May did happen. Teams have hot and cold stretches all the time, you can't really throw out the horrible months without also tossing the good ones.

If we didn't set the world on fire with that crazy stretch in late July through August, we'd be out.

I understand that, but I was just simply pointing out that the Royals during that May was a winning % of .286. If they would had simply played .400 or better ball just for May alone....

Just they dug themselves too deep of a hole to get out. The 2014 season worst monthly % record was...

wait for it....

May - .414%

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Coach

I would also argue that the Royals had a better 2nd half of the season. Same thing happened in 2013 as well. It was only a matter of time before they got it.

First Half: 48 wins, 46 losses .511 winning %.
Second Half: 41 wins, 27 losses .603 winning %.

And I have always maintained my argument that if the Royals (2013) didn't had a god-awful month of May (they went 8-20 during that time frame), they would have gotten a wild card bid, had they played .500 ball in that month alone.

That's like the part Dave said the Royals got lucky winning the Oak game (which they did). But there wasn't 1 - just 1? game they didn't get unlucky in 2014? The Sal tag up play vs Det, where we also left two RISP at the end vs Nathan for the win comes to mind. Win that and we win the division and don't even play in the WC

Dave didn't consider the bad royals luck, only the good.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by tk13

That guy has an ego. In the end he still basically paints it as a mediocre team that got lucky.

I do absolutely think there is luck involved in all sports, even just to get to the playoffs. You have to stay healthy, you have to catch breaks at certain times. There are individual plays you could put to that put the Chiefs in/out of the playoffs. Example: Patrick Surtain drops an INT on the hands in against Dallas in 2005. Cowboys march down and score, Chiefs miss playoffs by one game, Steelers get in and win the Super Bowl. I bet the odds of Surtain catching that pass were at least 50/50.

But really that article is kind of an insult to Dayton Moore, basically saying I know more about baseball than you, and you got lucky. There's a much deeper conversation about how to build a baseball team to be had there, but he never gets there. It depends on what your definition of mediocre is. This years Royals team is obviously not the Big Red Machine or 27 Yankees, but there are things they do very well.

1) They play defense at a very high level, and most people would concede they are the best defensive team in baseball. I'm being conservative, but some would argue their place among the great defensive teams in recent history.

2) The back end of the bullpen is the best trio of finishers in the league. Even if you want to look at it in pure numbers, no other team in the history of baseball has had 3 guys post 60+ IP with an ERA under 1.50.

3) They run the bases as well as anyone in baseball. They have as much speed as anyone, and not only did they lead the league in steals by a decent margin, they also led the league in SB percentage. They did it efficiently. They also had a considerable amount of infield hits.

4) They are exceptional at making contact. They didn't just strike out less than 1000 times this year, they were the only team to strike out less than 1100 times too. There were over 100 strikeouts between them and the next closest team. They put between 100-500 more balls in play for opposing defenses to handle than any other team.

These are just four simple things they probably do better than any other team in baseball. Not just at a high level, but areas where they are the best. And that can lead to all kinds of discussions about how you can build a team, what is important, etc, etc. But it appears many of these statistics are intentional, and the result of a specific philosophy... whether you think that philosophy is stupid or not. Just throwing your hands up and saying "luck" is kind of a cop out.

Fantastic post

[Great Expectations]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Dave Cameron wrote a pretty interesting mea culpa on the Royals over at Fangraphs. If you didn't know, he was a huge vocal critic of the Wil Myers trade, and he argued that the Royals should sell at the trade deadline this season.

Where I Was Wrong About the Royals

He still believes that he was correct about how good the Royals were, and how likely they were to make the playoffs. Which, I think he probably was roughly right on what the team looks like after the Myers trade.

He basically says he was wrong about two things.

1) He may have over-estimated the value of possibly having a great team sometime years in the future vs having a decent team that might be able to make it into the playoffs several years now. After seeing the Angels, Nats, Dodgers, and Orioles get wiped out in short series, it seems like its more important to just make it in vs trying to build up a terrific team.

2) Even though making the playoffs may have seemed unlikely and winning the pennant seemed very unlikely, he may have underestimated the upside of being lucky. He used a poker analogy, if you have an outside straight draw after the turn, you will probably lose if you call, but if the pot is huge and the cost to call is small, then its probably correct to call because if you make your hand, you win big. By going for it and making it, whether it was spectacular luck or whatever, the Royals are probably creating new life-long fans from kids who otherwise would have only cared about the Chiefs.

This guy is an egomaniac douchebag. I love how the Billy Beane lovers can't figure out how important defense and speed are in baseball.

They also can't figure out guys like Duffy who make players have awkward swings producing weak contact.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Great Expectations

This guy is an egomaniac douchebag. I love how the Billy Beane lovers can't figure out how important defense and speed are in baseball.

They also can't figure out guys like Duffy who make players have awkward swings producing weak contact.

Fangraphs' WAR had Alex Gordon rated more valuable than Mike Trout for much of the season...because the Fangraphs people really value defense.

Billy Beane noticed that defense was being undervalued in the market years ago...so wouldn't "Billy Beane lovers" also value defense?

[Great Expectations]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Fangraphs' WAR had Alex Gordon rated more valuable than Mike Trout for much of the season...because the Fangraphs people really value defense.

Billy Beane noticed that defense was being undervalued in the market years ago...so wouldn't "Billy Beane lovers" also value defense?

They also had Hosmer's with a negative defensive value a few years ago. Billy Beane said that this team had no business being in the playoffs during our matchup with them is September.

[Three7s]

Originally Posted by Great Expectations

They also had Hosmer's with a negative defensive value a few years ago. Billy Beane said that this team had no business being in the playoffs during our matchup with them is September.

I'm pretty sure that was article was a fake.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Great Expectations

They also had Hosmer's with a negative defensive value a few years ago.

We're not talking about whether Fangraphs was correct in either of these instances. We're talking about whether they value defense or not. They clearly do, despite your claim to the contrary.

[okcchief]

**** Billy Beane.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Great Expectations

They also had Hosmer's with a negative defensive value a few years ago. Billy Beane said that this team had no business being in the playoffs during our matchup with them is September.

That "quote" from Billy Beane was not actually from him. Someone linked a satire story thinking it was true.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

We're not talking about whether Fangraphs was correct in either of these instances. We're talking about whether they value defense or not. They clearly do, despite your claim to the contrary.

FG values def just fine, as you say.


Dave's job is to explain WHY the Royals win ball games. He chose to punt by saying we essentially won big on a random round of poker. Pussy. Since June 1 2013 the Royals are 161-119 (.575) or 93-69 equivalent. That's 280 outcomes. If he can't explain why 8 postseason outcomes matter, then at least try the huge 280 sample.

[Hootie]

PB bringing the heat. I like it. He's ok when he's not trolling.

[alnorth]

Random question: anyone here have half or full season tickets on the lower level?

I'm wondering how easy it generally is to sell unused tickets on the secondary market for say, at least face or just a small loss? Obviously you'd wanna take the profit if the secondary market is offering it to you especially for popular weekend series, but do you generally just eat big losses for midweek games that you can't go to?

[Hootie]

alnorth thinking about being a season ticket holder! Niiiice

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

PB bringing the heat. I like it. He's ok when he's not trolling.

The entire goal of the SABR community is to explain what's happened. They pride themselves on disproving old baseball myths and bragged how the "old school" reacted defensively. But now? It's doing the same damn thing. Science investigates why outcomes occur, it doesn't defend the broken models.


Rany & I and others on the Fangraphs site are having to re-examine what the hell just happened. And I am excited to see what comes of it. Because I want to learn, dammit. Dave Cameron wants to have his views reinforced.


Finally the SABR community needs to start addressing Billy Beane. Whom I love. He's won 1 playoff series and lost what, 9? The sample size is growing for him. The "short series" excuse is morphing into nothing but cover for the Patron Saint of the SABR movement.