KSUFans Archives
Sports => The Good, The Bad, and the "Meh" => Topic started by: kougar24 on July 23, 2007, 08:18:04 AM
-
Even the haters have to admit that these guys are showing certain signs of progress, winning close games, bouncing back from extra-inning losses, and taking it to the top 3 teams in MLB on the road.
:dancin:
-
SUCK IT, KAT KID!
-
you do know what constitutes a "good" record in baseball right?
You know that with that "good" record there accompanies somewhere in the range of 60-70 losses and that the World Series champions from last year had 78 regular season losses?
.600 is a playoff team in baseball. The Royals are VERY, VERY far from that. "Progress" like this is a mirage. Two weeks is no 162 game season.
60-80 losses leave plenty of room for Royal's feel good stories.
-
:frown:
-
you do know what constitutes a "good" record in baseball right?
You know that with that "good" record there accompanies somewhere in the range of 60-70 losses and that the World Series champions from last year had 78 regular season losses?
.600 is a playoff team in baseball. The Royals are VERY, VERY far from that. "Progress" like this is a mirage. Two weeks is no 162 game season.
60-80 losses leave plenty of room for Royal's feel good stories.
Scoreboard.
:chirp:
-
you do know what constitutes a "good" record in baseball right?
You know that with that "good" record there accompanies somewhere in the range of 60-70 losses and that the World Series champions from last year had 78 regular season losses?
.600 is a playoff team in baseball. The Royals are VERY, VERY far from that. "Progress" like this is a mirage. Two weeks is no 162 game season.
60-80 losses leave plenty of room for Royal's feel good stories.
:jerkoff:
Where in my post did I say that the Royals have a good record, or that they were a playoff team?
As for "two weeks," the Royals are 32-28 since May 12th. That's over two months with an above-.500 record. And for the Royals, that kind of progress is no "mirage."
-
you do know what constitutes a "good" record in baseball right?
You know that with that "good" record there accompanies somewhere in the range of 60-70 losses and that the World Series champions from last year had 78 regular season losses?
.600 is a playoff team in baseball. The Royals are VERY, VERY far from that. "Progress" like this is a mirage. Two weeks is no 162 game season.
60-80 losses leave plenty of room for Royal's feel good stories.
I'm by no means a Royals hater, but a two-week mini-stretch won't mean anything on Opening Day 2008. I don't mind if Royals fans want to look at it as progress, but baseball is a game of streaks. This recent streak just looks good because the Royals have somehow failed to go on any in recent years. And I'm referring to win streaks, of course.
The fact that guys like Gordon and Butler will start Opening Day next year with an attitude of "I can do this" rather than "Can I do this?" will be far more important. A 5-4 stretch in a lost season, to me, isn't all that significant. Again, if it is to you, I'm OK with that.
I still think Buddy Bell needs to go. The losing culture -- which, as a Cubs fan, I'm all too familiar with -- is going to loom until somebody comes in and changes it. Dayton Moore appears to be a winner. But Bell just screams mediocrity.
For the Royals' sake, I hope they hire Joe Girardi.
-
two-week mini-stretch
See my post above.
-
two-week mini-stretch
See my post above.
Fair enough. Mini streak or not, though, that's not really my point. The Royals, unlike teams in the playoff chase, are playing with nothing to lose. There's no pressure on them. Same can't be said for teams like the Cubs, Brewers, Dodgers and Braves -- who are locked in a playoff chase. The situation is different.
If the Royals get off to a hot start next season and find themselves above .500, let's see how they play then. Will they continue to play loose (and with confidence), or will they crawl into a shell like I half-expect Milwaukee will?
I'm just not real big on the assumption that everything carries over to the next season. People make such a huge deal in pro football over how a team finishes a season. Two years ago, the Dolphins won like six straight and went from 3-7 to 9-7 (or something like that.) Next thing you know, they are Super Bowl favorites and everyone's on the Dolphin bandwagon ("Hey, did you see how they finished '05-'06!"). Uh, yeah.
"With the No. 9 pick in the 2007 NFL Draft, the Miami Dolphins select ..."
-
Okay, non-Royals fans, you are reading waaaay too much into this thread. I'm not making any assumptions about 2008. I'm simply saying that Royals fans haven't had this much hope since 2003. We're winning with some consistency against the best teams in baseball, and we're doing it with young kids that we could actually keep in KC awhile.
-
two-week mini-stretch
See my post above.
Fair enough. Mini streak or not, though, that's not really my point. The Royals, unlike teams in the playoff chase, are playing with nothing to lose. There's no pressure on them. Same can't be said for teams like the Cubs, Brewers, Dodgers and Braves -- who are locked in a playoff chase. The situation is different.
If the Royals get off to a hot start next season and find themselves above .500, let's see how they play then. Will they continue to play loose (and with confidence), or will they crawl into a shell like I half-expect Milwaukee will?
I'm just not real big on the assumption that everything carries over to the next season. People make such a huge deal in pro football over how a team finishes a season. Two years ago, the Dolphins won like six straight and went from 3-7 to 9-7 (or something like that.) Next thing you know, they are Super Bowl favorites and everyone's on the Dolphin bandwagon ("Hey, did you see how they finished '05-'06!"). Uh, yeah.
"With the No. 9 pick in the 2007 NFL Draft, the Miami Dolphins select ..."
meaningless psycho-babble.
What does Baseball Prospectus say? (I honestly don't know)
-
The Royals bullpen is pretty damn good. In fact, they will
probably trade one of their pitchers since they are so deep
at that postition(relievers). I hope they don't trade Dotel,
but I'm guessing he is good as gone.
The young guns are hitting with more confidence, and the
starting ptiching has been sufficient...
You don't go from losing 100 games a year to playoff
contenders just like that, it takes a several year plan,
and I like the direction that the new GM has them going.
They actually are fairly entertaining to watch on TV again.
-
and the starting ptiching has been sufficient...
Bannister has pitched pretty well, but let's not get carried away. This is a weakness of the team.
-
All I know is that when GMDM came in he talked about aiming for .500 in 2008 and for the playoffs in 2009. With the way this season started out, 8-18 on May 1, if you would have told me we'd only be 11 games under .500 in late July (especially after the road trip we just had) I would have been ecstatic.....AND I AM!!!!!
:woohoo:
-
At this point in time, tied-for-last-place feels pretty good!
-
You don't go from losing 100 games a year to playoff
contenders just like that, it takes a several year plan,
and I like the direction that the new GM has them going.
Well, you can. The Tigers lost 90 or more games eight times in 10 years and then won the AL pennant. So it is possible. Then again, they -- like the Cubs -- spent money in the offseason and had that luxury. The Royals don't. All I'm saying (and again, I'm not arguing with anybody) ... is that it is a process. I just don't put much stock into wins and losses in a lost season. This coming from a guy who buys into "You Play To Win The Game."
The Royals will be good in time, as soon as they catch up to the Tigers, Indians and Twins in terms of talent level. But that's going to be tough. Even if Dayton's plan comes to fruition, it's still no guarantee the Royals will be able to compete with the Indians and Tigers -- two teams that are absolutely stocked. The Indians have three guys in Triple-A Buffalo who could come in and contribute (on a playoff-caliber team) right away. Adam Miller will probably be up by the end of July.
I think the Royals will be better than the White Sox next season. They might even be better than the Twins. But leaping ahead of the Tigers and Indians, man, that's gonna be hard. If the Royals played in the weak NL Central, or the four-team AL West -- that's hope.
-
I just don't put much stock into wins and losses in a lost season.
That's ridiculous.
-
I just don't put much stock into wins and losses in a lost season.
That's ridiculous.
What did 2003 accomplish for the Royals? What was the difference between that and 2005?
What was the difference between 119 loss Tigers and 90 loss Tigers?
Keep in mind the Tigers before going to the World Series had not had as much as a winning record in 13 seasons.
It really isn't so hard to turn around a baseball franchise. It requires money and a competent GM. Not a brilliant GM like Billy Beane, not a terrible GM/Owner like Tom Hicks but a competent GM like Minnesota, Cleveland, Detroit, LAA, Oakland, Seattle, Toronto, New York, Boston all have. You just have to give yourself a chance with money too. The Tigers overpaid for Pudge. They overpaid for Percival (who ended up doing nothing). They overpaid (at the time) for Maggs and that turned out very well for them. They didn't give up guys like guillen, but they traded good bullpen guys for everyday players (see: Polanco and Sean Casey) they kicked clubhouse trouble guys to the curb (Young) and took calculated risks on other guys Kenny Rogers and Sheff.
From the rock-bottom 2003 to the World Series team the Tigers kept 6 pitchers. Today only Bonderman, Nate Robertson and Rodney are still here after trading Maroth and Ledezma and not re-signing Walker.
during the same period the Tigers kept Brandon Inge (catcher, now everyday third basemen), Omar Infante (utility) and Craig Monroe (4th Outfielder).
It was a total overhaul, but it happened because of Illitch and Dombrowski spending money and making logical moves that incrementally helped their cause. The Royals so far have allowed an All-Star team of talent to escape K.C. The Tigers never did that. They had problems much worse. The Tigers had awful, awful players and signed as bad or worse free agent talent than the Royals. The Royals have shown an ability to draft and develop good position players: Damon, Beltran, Dye, Teahan, Dejesus, Sweeney. The problem is that they haven't re-signed any of them (besides Sweeney). The Tigers brought up and brought in talent and kept them. Inge/Granderson/Monroe/Thames/Infante and the pitching minus bullpen/Rogers is all home-grown. The pitching has been fortunate, but the best players are nearly all free agents/trades. Polanco/Sheff/Casey/Pudge/Guillen. It was all because they decided to spend money. The Royals spending is and has been a joke for some time. The GM matters not until the stingy Wal-Mart fat cat running the Royals decides to open his wallet.
-
I just don't put much stock into wins and losses in a lost season.
That's ridiculous.
What did 2003 accomplish for the Royals? What was the difference between that and 2005?
What was the difference between 119 loss Tigers and 90 loss Tigers?
Keep in mind the Tigers before going to the World Series had not had as much as a winning record in 13 seasons.
It really isn't so hard to turn around a baseball franchise. It requires money and a competent GM. Not a brilliant GM like Billy Beane, not a terrible GM/Owner like Tom Hicks but a competent GM like Minnesota, Cleveland, Detroit, LAA, Oakland, Seattle, Toronto, New York, Boston all have. You just have to give yourself a chance with money too. The Tigers overpaid for Pudge. They overpaid for Percival (who ended up doing nothing). They overpaid (at the time) for Maggs and that turned out very well for them. They didn't give up guys like guillen, but they traded good bullpen guys for everyday players (see: Polanco and Sean Casey) they kicked clubhouse trouble guys to the curb (Young) and took calculated risks on other guys Kenny Rogers and Sheff.
From the rock-bottom 2003 to the World Series team the Tigers kept 6 pitchers. Today only Bonderman, Nate Robertson and Rodney are still here after trading Maroth and Ledezma and not re-signing Walker.
during the same period the Tigers kept Brandon Inge (catcher, now everyday third basemen), Omar Infante (utility) and Craig Monroe (4th Outfielder).
It was a total overhaul, but it happened because of Illitch and Dombrowski spending money and making logical moves that incrementally helped their cause. The Royals so far have allowed an All-Star team of talent to escape K.C. The Tigers never did that. They had problems much worse. The Tigers had awful, awful players and signed as bad or worse free agent talent than the Royals. The Royals have shown an ability to draft and develop good position players: Damon, Beltran, Dye, Teahan, Dejesus, Sweeney. The problem is that they haven't re-signed any of them (besides Sweeney). The Tigers brought up and brought in talent and kept them. Inge/Granderson/Monroe/Thames/Infante and the pitching minus bullpen/Rogers is all home-grown. The pitching has been fortunate, but the best players are nearly all free agents/trades. Polanco/Sheff/Casey/Pudge/Guillen. It was all because they decided to spend money. The Royals spending is and has been a joke for some time. The GM matters not until the stingy Wal-Mart fat cat running the Royals decides to open his wallet.
I hate you. (your love for baseball)
-
and the starting ptiching has been sufficient...
Uhm...NO.
Here's what the starters gave us on the road trip:
Cleveland Game #1: Perez, 4.2 innings, 4 runs --> Bad start
Cleveland Game #2: Meche, 5 innings, 4 runs --> Bad start
Cleveland Game #3: De La Rosa, 3.1 innings, 3 runs --> Bad start
Boston Game #1: Bannister, 6 innings, 4 runs --> Decent, not good, start (I'm being generous)
Boston Game #2: Nunez, 4 innings, 1 run --> Good start
Boston Game #3: Perez, 5 innings, 5 runs --> Bad start
Detroit Game #1: Meche, 7 innings, 2 runs --> EXCELLENT start
Detroit Game #2: De La Rosa, 4.1 innings, 7 runs --> Bad start
Detroit Game #3: Bannister, 7 innings, 1 run --> EXCELLENT start
3 of 9 starts good, and another somewhat decent. If it wasn't Boston on the road, that fourth one wouldn't even be decent. Here's what the Royal's starters gave us, on average, on this road trip:
5 innings pitched --> BAD
3.4 runs --> BAD
-
I just don't put much stock into wins and losses in a lost season.
That's ridiculous.
What did 2003 accomplish for the Royals? What was the difference between that and 2005?
What was the difference between 119 loss Tigers and 90 loss Tigers?
Keep in mind the Tigers before going to the World Series had not had as much as a winning record in 13 seasons.
It really isn't so hard to turn around a baseball franchise. It requires money and a competent GM. Not a brilliant GM like Billy Beane, not a terrible GM/Owner like Tom Hicks but a competent GM like Minnesota, Cleveland, Detroit, LAA, Oakland, Seattle, Toronto, New York, Boston all have. You just have to give yourself a chance with money too. The Tigers overpaid for Pudge. They overpaid for Percival (who ended up doing nothing). They overpaid (at the time) for Maggs and that turned out very well for them. They didn't give up guys like guillen, but they traded good bullpen guys for everyday players (see: Polanco and Sean Casey) they kicked clubhouse trouble guys to the curb (Young) and took calculated risks on other guys Kenny Rogers and Sheff.
From the rock-bottom 2003 to the World Series team the Tigers kept 6 pitchers. Today only Bonderman, Nate Robertson and Rodney are still here after trading Maroth and Ledezma and not re-signing Walker.
during the same period the Tigers kept Brandon Inge (catcher, now everyday third basemen), Omar Infante (utility) and Craig Monroe (4th Outfielder).
It was a total overhaul, but it happened because of Illitch and Dombrowski spending money and making logical moves that incrementally helped their cause. The Royals so far have allowed an All-Star team of talent to escape K.C. The Tigers never did that. They had problems much worse. The Tigers had awful, awful players and signed as bad or worse free agent talent than the Royals. The Royals have shown an ability to draft and develop good position players: Damon, Beltran, Dye, Teahan, Dejesus, Sweeney. The problem is that they haven't re-signed any of them (besides Sweeney). The Tigers brought up and brought in talent and kept them. Inge/Granderson/Monroe/Thames/Infante and the pitching minus bullpen/Rogers is all home-grown. The pitching has been fortunate, but the best players are nearly all free agents/trades. Polanco/Sheff/Casey/Pudge/Guillen. It was all because they decided to spend money. The Royals spending is and has been a joke for some time. The GM matters not until the stingy Wal-Mart fat cat running the Royals decides to open his wallet.
I didn't read your whole post, but SABRmatricians knew that the '03 Royals had an inflated record, but it had more to do with run production and pitching than "pressure". LOL @ people who think situations affect MLB players' performance. MLB players are under pressure for every at bat, no matter the situation.
-
who said anything about pressure? :confused:
-
:chirp: :chirp: :chirp:
-
and the starting ptiching has been sufficient...
Uhm...NO.
Here's what the starters gave us on the road trip:
Cleveland Game #1: Perez, 4.2 innings, 4 runs --> Bad start
Cleveland Game #2: Meche, 5 innings, 4 runs --> Bad start
Cleveland Game #3: De La Rosa, 3.1 innings, 3 runs --> Bad start
Boston Game #1: Bannister, 6 innings, 4 runs --> Decent, not good, start (I'm being generous)
Boston Game #2: Nunez, 4 innings, 1 run --> Good start
Boston Game #3: Perez, 5 innings, 5 runs --> Bad start
Detroit Game #1: Meche, 7 innings, 2 runs --> EXCELLENT start
Detroit Game #2: De La Rosa, 4.1 innings, 7 runs --> Bad start
Detroit Game #3: Bannister, 7 innings, 1 run --> EXCELLENT start
3 of 9 starts good, and another somewhat decent. If it wasn't Boston on the road, that fourth one wouldn't even be decent. Here's what the Royal's starters gave us, on average, on this road trip:
5 innings pitched --> BAD
3.4 runs --> BAD
Cleveland Game #2: Meche, 5 innings, 4 runs --> Bad start (win)
Boston Game #3: Perez, 5 innings, 5 runs --> Bad start (win)
"You play.....to win.....the game! You play.....to win.....the game"!
"It's Major League Baseball! It's the American League Central! You want better results go play minor league baseball brother"!
Pop quiz.....Name the two coaches I just parodied?
-
who said anything about pressure? :confused:
J Rake
-
LOL @ people who think situations affect MLB players' performance. MLB players are under pressure for every at bat, no matter the situation.
You can't tell me the Yankees and Royals head to the ball park feeling similar in terms of the amount of pressure they have on them to win games. If the Yanks lose, heads roll. If the Royals lose, well, try better tomorrow.
It's not the same.
And pressure doesn't exist just in Major League Baseball. It's everywhere. Marty Schottenheimer is one of the greatest regular season coaches in the history of the NFL. He's absolutely brutal in the playoffs. The situation -- the moment -- becomes too big for him.
A-Rod has been great in regular seasons. Sucks in the playoffs. He can't explain it.
But I'll try.
-
LOL @ people who think situations affect MLB players' performance. MLB players are under pressure for every at bat, no matter the situation.
You can't tell me the Yankees and Royals head to the ball park feeling similar in terms of the amount of pressure they have on them to win games. If the Yanks lose, heads roll. If the Royals lose, well, try better tomorrow.
It's not the same.
And pressure doesn't exist just in Major League Baseball. It's everywhere. Marty Schottenheimer is one of the greatest regular season coaches in the history of the NFL. He's absolutely brutal in the playoffs. The situation -- the moment -- becomes too big for him.
A-Rod has been great in regular seasons. Sucks in the playoffs.
A-Rod is a horrible example.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Xw3C9lX7-3kJ:www.nyyankeefans.com/forums/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D5026%26mode%3Dthreaded%26pid%3D180377+alex+rodriguez+clutch+sabermetrics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
There is no statistically valid evidence that "clutch" hitting exists. None.
-
Yeah. . . . I think we're drifting here. Rusty go back and re-read my post. has nothing to do with Rake re: Pressure. More to do with Dayton Moore/Dave Dombrowski and their respective purse sizes.
-
Yeah. . . . I think we're drifting here. Rusty go back and re-read my post. has nothing to do with Rake re: Pressure. More to do with Dayton Moore/Dave Dombrowski and their respective purse sizes.
I know. I was just explaining that I wasn't really disagreeing with you.
-
Cleveland Game #2: Meche, 5 innings, 4 runs --> Bad start (win)
Boston Game #3: Perez, 5 innings, 5 runs --> Bad start (win)
That does nothing to support the insane idea that starting pitching is somehow sufficient. It's sucked, and sucked hard. It's like saying Dylan Meier was sufficient because we won 3 of the 5 games he started.
-
There is no statistically valid evidence that "clutch" hitting exists. None.
Rusty, you're reaching here. A Yanks message board from 2006? Just to make a point? Look, I'm not trying to get in a right/wrong battle. I never asked you to agree with me. But pressure exists in sports. It's there. To say it isn't, and to say every player feels x amount of pressure in every at-bat, is lunacy. But again, that's my opinion.
And isn't pressure one of the great things about sports? I mean, isn't it kind of cool to see a guy like Bill Cowher win a Super Bowl after making it to six AFC Championship Games? It took him six tries, yes, but he finally figured it out. You keep putting yourself in position to win, and eventually you do. He learned from all those experiences. Good for him. The Royals playing a meaningless game in mid-July in no way simulates October baseball.
But baseball has had a laundry list of players who have routinely come up clutch in big situations. I grew up watching Paul O'Neill and Tino Martinez on some of those great Yanks teams in the 90's ... and you just KNEW they'd come up big when they needed to. Do they always? No. But either did Jordan. Or Jerry West. Or Tiger Woods. Or Tom Brady.
Nobody is perfect in the clutch. Some are better than others -- not only players, but teams, too.
-
But pressure exists in sports. It's there. To say it isn't, and to say every player feels x amount of pressure in every at-bat, is lunacy. But again, that's my opinion.
Nah, that's a fact.
-
Rusty, you're reaching here. A Yanks message board from 2006? Just to make a point? Look, I'm not trying to get in a right/wrong battle. I never asked you to agree with me. But pressure exists in sports. It's there. To say it isn't, and to say every player feels x amount of pressure in every at-bat, is lunacy. But again, that's my opinion.
I'm not disputing that pressure exists, I'm just saying the effects of pressure are statistically irrelevant.
The cream always rises to the crop.
http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/fullclutch.html
-
Rake/Kougs
read Bill James or look at some "clutch" hitters splits over a career.
Clutch hitting doesn't exist. Pressure is so undefinable that to discuss it in terms of the quantifiable effect on numbers or constructing patterns of failure is pretty much impossible. Feel free to point me to any sort of statistics to back up what you're saying.
Kougs: high school anecdotes about free throws don't count.
-
Hey, uh, it's late July and people actually care enough to discuss the Royals. Maybe there has been some progress. I take back (almost) everything I've said. :D
Kat Kid: regarding Bill James, I have read some of his stuff before (not year-by-year, I'm not really a numbers guy) ... and find him to be interesting. And while I'd have to concede what you are saying about clutch hitting, since nothing I could say would be backed by anything, I do think that some players give themselves better opportunities to succeed in clutch situations. Some guys have better control over their emotions, bodies, etc. Some simply rely on experience. That stuff, I don't think, is really testable. But maybe I'm wrong?
-
Hey, uh, it's late July and people actually care enough to discuss the Royals. Maybe there has been some progress. I take back (almost) everything I've said. :D
Kat Kid: regarding Bill James, I have read some of his stuff before (not year-by-year, I'm not really a numbers guy) ... and find him to be interesting. And while I'd have to concede what you are saying about clutch hitting, since nothing I could say would be backed by anything, I do think that some players give themselves better opportunities to succeed in clutch situations. Some guys have better control over their emotions, bodies, etc. Some simply rely on experience. That stuff, I don't think, is really testable. But maybe I'm wrong?
I agree with you. The argument is that those same guys that have better control over their emotions etc. tend to be more successful overall.
-
KK: I never said anything about the pressure being quantifiable.
-
ESPN link: Royal uprising (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=2945868&name=olney_buster&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d2945868%26name%3dolney_buster)
Anyone have Insider? Please post full blog thingy here.
-
The Royals are still miles away from where they want to be, but they are moving ahead, bit by bit. "Brick by brick," as general manager Dayton Moore said on Sunday. The Royals went into Detroit for three days and won two games, and if you've seen the Tigers play in the last month, you know this is no small feat.
The Royals started their season 21-38, but have won 22 of their 38 games since then, climbing into a tie with the White Sox at the bottom of the AL Central. Billy Butler has moved into the middle of their lineup and is doing what injuries prevented Mike Sweeney from doing the last few years, giving the Royals a steady run producer. The bullpen has improved dramatically, Gil Meche has earned every bit of his salary, the lineup is deepening.
So Moore has a difficult quandary on his hands this week. The Royals have several of the most marketable players available in what is a poor trade market -- closer Octavio Dotel, veteran outfielder Reggie Sanders (who is 3-for-11 since coming off the disabled list), and second baseman Mark Grudzielanek, he of the .300 batting average.
For the organization that has had one winning season since 1993, and hasn't appeared in the playoffs in more than two decades, it would mean a lot for the Royals to show progress in the standings. It would mean a lot for Kansas City to approach .500, to finish ahead of the White Sox in the standings. It would mean a lot to the players. You could make an argument that Moore should keep his team together and continue to try to win.
But it would also help the Royals, moving forward, to get better players, to improve the team for future seasons, to get good young prospects in return for Dotel, for Sanders, for Grudzielanek.
"We've got to find a balance," said Moore. "We've got to be open-minded about getting any player -- or players -- back [in trades] that we feel can help us long term.
"But we've got to learn to win, too, and we've been saying that since Day 1. ... The only way you learn how to win is by being in games late."
And as the bullpen has improved, with Joakim Soria and Zack Greinke working in middle relief and Dotel serving as the closer, Kansas City has been involved in more games decided in the late innings -- an opportunity for hitters to have at-bats with the Royals just ahead, or maybe a run behind, or with the score tied. "Those situations require a higher level of concentration," Moore said, "and the hitters are getting a chance to be in those situations."
But Moore must think big-picture. "And if we can get pieces [in a trade] that can help us win a championship, that's important," he said.
So it may be that in the next eight days, Moore will trade Dotel, who has been pitching in the lower half of the strike zone more than he did in his days as a closer with the Astros and Athletics; this has helped him improve his performance against left-handed hitters. In the past, lefties hammered the right-handed Dotel, especially for power, but this year, lefties and righties have an identical .378 slugging percentage against him.
The Red Sox are considering adding Sanders or Oakland's Bobby Kielty and dumping Wily Mo Pena, and while the Royals might not get a good prospect for Sanders, they might save some money.
Grudzielanek might make sense for a team like the Mets, in the aftermath of Jose Valentin's devastating injury, but Moore would have a difficult decision: Grudzielanek has been the leader of the Royals, a veteran who has been an immense help to Tony Pena Jr. And once Grudzielanek hits 500 plate appearances, his $4 million option for 2008 vests, a nice deal for the second baseman, a good short-term contract for a productive player on the Royals.
Kansas City may have to be overwhelmed to deal Grudzielanek, because he has been an essential part of the turnaround that has begun to take place with the Royals.
Moore was in the middle of a long-distance run as he talked, his words coming haltingly between breaths. He and the Royals have miles to go, a journey that will help define the moves he makes, or does not make, in the next eight days.
Sunday's victory was a statement win for the Royals, who took the series from the Tigers. Mark Grudzielanek has been raking.
-
:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep::sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
-
Royals will be a playoff team in two years.
-
That's the idea
-
Royals will be a playoff team in two years.
Will make 3 figure bet with you on that.
-
Royals will be a playoff team in two years.
Will make 3 figure bet with you on that.
That includes the decimal places, doesn't it?
-
hahaha. yankees owning royals once again in the first inning.....
in other news: I HATE MLB!!!! :mad: