Royals go 5-4 on road trip from Hell

[kougar24]

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.

 

[michigancat]

SUCK IT, KAT KID!

[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.

[michigancat]

[Saulbadguy]

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.
 

[kougar24]

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.

 

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."

[J Rake]

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.

[kougar24]

two-week mini-stretch

See my post above.

[J Rake]

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 ..."

[kougar24]

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.

[michigancat]

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)

[catfan28]

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.

[kougar24]

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.

[catsfan20012002]

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!!!!!

[jeffy]

At this point in time, tied-for-last-place feels pretty good!

[J Rake]

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.

[michigancat]

I just don't put much stock into wins and losses in a lost season.

That's ridiculous.

[Kat Kid]

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.

[fatty fat fat]

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)

[KSU4ME]

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

[michigancat]

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.

[Kat Kid]

who said anything about pressure?

[Saulbadguy]

[catsfan20012002]

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?

[michigancat]

who said anything about pressure?

J Rake

[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.

[michigancat]

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.

[Kat Kid]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[KSU4ME]

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.