Article: Sizing Up The Competition: Kansas City Royals

[TheLeviathan]

Eric summarized it nicely, but when one of your team's strengths is defense that shelters you considerably from regression.  Shouldn't we, as Twins fans, know that as well as any?  The Royals also field a defense far better than any we did in the 2000s, that's going to insulate them from sliding too far off what they did last year.

 

The real question for the Royals is how do the complement their defense?  Barring major injuries they are pretty much a .500 team just with how well they play D and shut teams down with their bullpen.  I think the real keys are their young offensive players.

 

Hosmer was a much better hitter the second half of last year.  Moustakas had some flashes of what he is capable of and they still have some solid players in Perez, Gordon, and others.  If that offense can pull itself out of being in the "dreadful" category, they may actually get better.

 

Cleveland, in my eyes, is the team to watch out for.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Eric summarized it nicely, but when one of your team's strengths is defense that shelters you considerably from regression. Shouldn't we, as Twins fans, know that as well as any? The Royals also field a defense far better than any we did in the 2000s, that's going to insulate them from sliding too far off what they did last year.

 

The real question for the Royals is how do the complement their defense? Barring major injuries they are pretty much a .500 team just with how well they play D and shut teams down with their bullpen. I think the real keys are their young offensive players.

 

Hosmer was a much better hitter the second half of last year. Moustakas had some flashes of what he is capable of and they still have some solid players in Perez, Gordon, and others. If that offense can pull itself out of being in the "dreadful" category, they may actually get better.

 

Cleveland, in my eyes, is the team to watch out for.

It's going to require a lot to go right and virtually nothing to go wrong for the Royals to be better in 2015. They lost James Shields and finished +5 in Pythag last season. That's 8-9 games they need to compensate for in 2015 if luck-neutral.

 

I expect the Royals to be around 85 wins. Good, not quite good enough to make the playoffs unless they get pretty lucky or the rest of the division falls completely flat.

[TheLeviathan]

It's going to require a lot to go right and virtually nothing to go wrong for the Royals to be better in 2015. They lost James Shields and finished +5 in Pythag last season. That's 8-9 games they need to compensate for in 2015 if luck-neutral.

 

I expect the Royals to be around 85 wins. Good, not quite good enough to make the playoffs unless they get pretty lucky or the rest of the division falls completely flat.

 

You think everything went great for them last year?  They had a hell of a late run that fueled them, but this is a team that also had awful campaigns from virtually every key offensive player on their roster for most of the season.  As soon as a few of them started to put things together they took off.

 

Losing Shields hurts and their offseason was less than impressive, but they walk in with some serious strengths that are still amongst the best in all of baseball.  That gives them more margin for error than many others.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You think everything went great for them last year? They had a hell of a late run that fueled them, but this is a team that also had awful campaigns from virtually every key offensive player on their roster for most of the season. As soon as a few of them started to put things together they took off.

 

Losing Shields hurts and their offseason was less than impressive, but they walk in with some serious strengths that are still amongst the best in all of baseball. That gives them more margin for error than many others.

I think they'll be a pretty good team but they were lucky last year. Based on runs scored vs runs allowed, they were +5 wins over a luck neutral team.

 

I didn't say everything went right last year. I said they need to compensate for 8-9 wins between luck and James Shields to be better than they were in 2014. That's a difficult hurdle to overcome. Not impossible but pretty difficult.

[old nurse]

84-78 for all of the teams in the Central Division.  Ron Manfred breaks down contemplating a 5 team playoff scenario and appoints Bud Selig to solve the problem beacause who else could make a bad situation worse. Selig rules that the Twins get a first round bye. The Twins end up the luckiest team in baseball in the playoffs. That is due in part because both Mauer and Hunter are injured and the rest of the team never heard of losing in the playoffs before.

I am only serious in that I believe the tams in the Central will be mediocre. I think Brock is correct in his take on the Royals.

[TheLeviathan]

I think they'll be a pretty good team but they were lucky last year. Based on runs scored vs runs allowed, they were +5 wins over a luck neutral team.

 

I didn't say everything went right last year. I said they need to compensate for 8-9 wins between luck and James Shields to be better than they were in 2014. That's a difficult hurdle to overcome. Not impossible but pretty difficult.

 

Sure, they were five better than their pyathgorean record - you think that was purely luck and not the margin of error I'm talking about?

 

Good defense and a great bullpen shortens games.  I'd argue that's a classic example of making your own luck.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

84-78 for all of the teams in the Central Division.  Ron Manfred breaks down contemplating a 5 team playoff scenario and appoints Bud Selig to solve the problem beacause who else could make a bad situation worse.

Oh, I don't know....Goodell?

[diehardtwinsfan]

Just a point, this may be one of those years where the central is considered weak because there are no 90 win teams, but there very well may be five 80 plus win teams.  It will be interesting to watch.  These teams could do a good job beating up on each other.

[tobi0040]

They lose Shields and his 3.20 era.

 

Ventura's era was 3.20 with a 3.74 xFIP and a whip of almost 1.30. No reason to think the pitching is as good next year. Relatively average offense. I think defense and base running keeps them sniffing 500

[jorgenswest]

Losing Shields will hurt in two ways. They will not only lose his starts but also work the bullpen more in games he would have started. For that reason, they should drop back.

 

However, I think the the Pythagorean projection is a little misused here.

 

There has been several studies about teams that outperform or underperform their projections. Teams that outperform their projections win more one run games and have a more even distribution of offensive runs scored (fewer big innings) and are good at preventing runs with their pitching/defense.

 

Teams with good bullpens will win more games than Pythagorean projects. Teams adept at playing small ball as measured by stolen bases, sacrifice hits and fewer home runs more evenly distribute their offensive runs and win more games than pythagorean projects.

 

The Royals have a very good bullpen. No one played better small ball last year. They won more games than their Pythagorean projection because of their skill set. It wasn't a matter of luck. Won't they bring a similar skill set forward next year?

[tobi0040]

I think those are good points Jorgens about the pen and one win games. But implied there is that the pen has a repeat performance. Holland has been consistently really good. Herrera has had a bad year in the last three and last year was his best. But I am not really a believer in Wade Davis throwing up an ERA o 1.00 year in and out. By nature the pen is typically the most volatile position year over year.

 

Shields had a WAR of 4.3 last year. Volquez replaces him and he has been really bad in many years since 2008.

 

At the end of the day I think a lot of things need to break right for them to sniff 89 wins again. I will say 89 could take the division next year.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Losing Shields will hurt in two ways. They will not only lose his starts but also work the bullpen more in games he would have started. For that reason, they should drop back.

 

However, I think the the Pythagorean projection is a little misused here.

 

There has been several studies about teams that outperform or underperform their projections. Teams that outperform their projections win more one run games and have a more even distribution of offensive runs scored (fewer big innings) and are good at preventing runs with their pitching/defense.

 

Teams with good bullpens will win more games than Pythagorean projects. Teams adept at playing small ball as measured by stolen bases, sacrifice hits and fewer home runs more evenly distribute their offensive runs and win more games than pythagorean projects.

 

The Royals have a very good bullpen. No one played better small ball last year. They won more games than their Pythagorean projection because of their skill set. It wasn't a matter of luck. Won't they bring a similar skill set forward next year?

That's all fine and dandy and I do believe that good bullpens tend to overperform pythag records over a season but...

 

The Royals were 22-25 in one run games last season.

 

This argument doesn't really pass the smell test. IMO, bullpens can help pythag record differential but +5 is a pretty huge difference. I wouldn't put money on the Royals repeating that a second time.

 

Add in the loss of Shields and his annual consumption of innings and things start to stack against the Royals repeating their 2014 campaign. It's not impossible because they're young and have room to develop but it's somewhat of a leap to just wash away 9+ wins between pythag and Shields and assume they're on the verge of a 90 win season (again, that's my argument... not whether the Royals will be good, whether they'll be as good or better than last year).

[jorgenswest]

As I started my comment, I believe the Royals will suffer from losing Shields in two ways. They lose his starts and the bullpen will have a bigger work load. That will lead to more runs given up and more losses. I also believe they will continue to have the skills that will give them more wins than their Pythagorean projection whatever it is for 2015.

[TheLeviathan]

Add in the loss of Shields and his annual consumption of innings and things start to stack against the Royals repeating their 2014 campaign. It's not impossible because they're young and have room to develop but it's somewhat of a leap to just wash away 9+ wins between pythag and Shields and assume they're on the verge of a 90 win season (again, that's my argument... not whether the Royals will be good, whether they'll be as good or better than last year).

 

Your argument isn't fair because it assumes they have to make up 9 wins.  If their skillset already puts them ahead of their pyth...then they aren't looking for 9 wins, but probably more like 6 or 7.  Then you have to factor in what they did that will likely replace Shields. (Volsquez is probably another 1 off that)  And then they are counting on progress of young players - the same kind you and others assume the Twins can count on for a win or two as well I'm guessing.  

 

So is 9 really a fair characterization?  It seems to me 4-5 games on pessimistic side or roughly treading water with 89 wins on the optimistic side is more fair to say.

 

To me, their biggest threat to their competitiveness isn't losing Shields but the typically erratic play of bullpens.  If that group isn't elite, then they quickly shift to more pessimistic projections.

[Dantes929]

  I think they do have to make up 9 wins.   Their skillset may make up 2 or 3 of these and their player progression may make up a few more.    Essentially its the same take you have but the starting point is actually 9 wins.    87 Twins were 85-77 when the pyth said 79-83.    They really didn't have a great bullpen, maybe a  bit better than average defense and hardly a hit and run offense.    The next year their rotation and bullpen was way better and they had 91 wins which is about what they should have.   Royals rotation is probably not better for losing Shields and the pen will have a tough time matching 2014 so yes I think 4-5 win decrease is probably realistic rather than pessimistic and treading water is optimistic.  I have no problem with being optimistic.   

[TheLeviathan]

Royals rotation is probably not better for losing Shields and the pen will have a tough time matching 2014 so yes I think 4-5 win decrease is probably realistic rather than pessimistic and treading water is optimistic.  I have no problem with being optimistic.   

 

We disagree and that's fine and it's a fair point that their bullpen was so good that they look like regression candidates, but their key offensive players also are highly unlikely to be that awful for the first four months too.  The Shields loss and how the rest of their staff cover for that could be the biggest swing.

 

Either way, what tends to bug me in an analysis like this is when people apply a different standard to the opposition than they would the Twins.  If we were Royals fans you wouldn't hear many of the arguments in this thread and I think it's important to try and keep some balance in evaluating them.

[tobi0040]

Leviathan,

 

The preliminary twins discussions I have seen among posters here I think has included a fair assessment of twins regression candidates. I have seen Hughes, Santana, Escobar, Vargas, plouffe, and dozier all listed (could be others I forgot)

[jimmer]

I see a few people seem to think Cleveland is in trouble.  Some saying 4th or 5th.  

 

They made the playoffs in 2013, Went 85-77 last year.

 

This offseason they added Moss in RF (big improvement), they replaced their shortstop last year (about an even tradeoff offensively but the replacement is much younger and MUCH better defensively)  .  That's pretty much it. No one really outperformed last year and Bourn and Kipnis underperformed big time.  Should see a bounceback from them.

 

The have the Cy Young winner.  They'll have Carrasco in the rotation the whole year. Bauer has the talent to do even better (decent FIP), Salazar is K machine (very good FIP), and House (above average FIP) should be the 5th guy.  They are all young with their best ahead of them yet have already done well. I know they got Floyd, but I can't imagine him staying long unless he's actually doing well.  They have way too much quality depth in that rotation.

 

And, again, they won 85 last year (even with the poor defense which should improve with a healthy Bourn and new shortstop) and made the playoffs the year before.  I don't see where the dropoff is going to be.

[tobi0040]

Kluber has to be a regression candidate. He peaked as the Indians 26th best prospect in 2010. In parts of three seasons he never had a league average ERA plus.

 

Then at 28 he throws up a 7.3 WAR year with a 2.44 ERA

 

They have some things going for them. But a few fewer wins from him seems certainly possible.

[jimmer]

Kluber has to be a regression candidate. He peaked as the Indians 26th best prospect in 2010. In parts of three seasons he never had a league average ERA plus.

 

Then at 28 he throws up a 7.3 WAR year with a 2.44 ERA

 

They have some things going for them. But a few fewer wins from him seems certainly possible.

I agree with the negative regression part on Kluber, but I think that's more than covered by the improvements gained by having full seasons of Carassco, Salazar, Bauer and House.

Edited February 1, 2015 by jimmer

[tobi0040]

Agreed. I think this year will be relatively open in the division. I could see three different teams winning, excluding KC and us (kc would be more likely than us though)

[Brock Beauchamp]

No one really outperformed last year and Bourn and Kipnis underperformed big time.  Should see a bounceback from them.

Why should we expect a bounceback from Bourn? His numbers in 2014 (albeit in a shortened season) weren't far off his career numbers. He's basically a league average player that has two outlier seasons with a high WAR. He's a defensive-oriented up-the-middle player with a mediocre bat who is entering his age 32 season.

 

If anything, Bourn is due to regress any minute now and when he does, there's a good chance it'll be ugly. He's a player on the wrong side of 30 who relies on his legs for offense. He doesn't hit for average, he's not particularly disciplined, and he doesn't have great power.

 

I agree that Kipnis is probably due for a rebound season.

[jimmer]

Why should we expect a bounceback from Bourn? His numbers in 2014 (albeit in a shortened season) weren't far off his career numbers. He's basically a league average player that has two outlier seasons with a high WAR. He's a defensive-oriented up-the-middle player with a mediocre bat who is entering his age 32 season.

 

 

Two outlier seasons with a high WAR? A solid starter is 2-3 WAR

 

2009: 4.6

2010: 4.3

2011: 3.7

2012: 6.1

 

If anything, the last couple seasons, partly due to injury, are more outliers with what he's done since establishing himself.

Edited February 1, 2015 by jimmer

[Brock Beauchamp]

Two outlier seasons with a high WAR? A solid starter is 2-3 WAR

 

2009: 4.6

2010: 4.3

2011: 3.7

2012: 6.1

 

If anything, the last couple seasons, partly due to injury, are more outliers with what he's done since establishing himself.

Look at where Bourn derives the bulk of his fWAR and then rethink why you believe he's ripe for a bounceback.

 

Here are his DRS numbers from the past several years: 11, 30, -3, 24, 3, -6.

 

So we have a guy with a middling bat, mediocre/subpar on-base ability, a guy who gets a lot of his offense from his legs and derives most of his WAR from defense. This same player is entering his age 32 season at an up-the-middle position.

 

And you expect him to bounce back? I look at that guy and see a pretty routine - and expected - player decline.

[tobi0040]

oh contrare Brock. We have a 39 year old that our GM thinks can still play center.

[Dantes929]

We disagree and that's fine and it's a fair point that their bullpen was so good that they look like regression candidates, but their key offensive players also are highly unlikely to be that awful for the first four months too.  The Shields loss and how the rest of their staff cover for that could be the biggest swing.

 

Either way, what tends to bug me in an analysis like this is when people apply a different standard to the opposition than they would the Twins.  If we were Royals fans you wouldn't hear many of the arguments in this thread and I think it's important to try and keep some balance in evaluating them.

If you want the pessimistic view of the Twins just go over to the Trib pages.   According to many on there our 4 losing season streak is virtually a guarantee that we will have the same track record of the Royals of the late 80's, the 90's and 2000 to 2013.    Yes it is our homerism that clouds our view but mainly it clouds our view of the Twins, not the other teams.     If you think our view of the Twins is too cheery you can just throw out that part of the discussion.    If it is not the Twins I want the Royals, Indians, Tigers and White Sox in that order so even evaluating those teams have some bias.    Of course Royals fans have bias as well but your point is well taken.   Royals definitely have room to grow offensively and losing Shields may not be such a huge thing.    Split the difference and say their pyth results will be 87 wins and a plus or minus 3 is reasonable.   .       

[ashbury]

oh contrare Brock. We have a 39 year old that our GM thinks can still play center.

That's a mischaracterization of the only quote I have seen from Ryan on the subject.

 

I saw him, I think, maybe seven games or so [in 2014]. His defense for me was more than adequate. He's not the type of guy that you're going to say, "Oh, he can go over there and play center for a length of time," but I would guarantee you he could go out and play center field for a couple days and you wouldn't really miss too much. ...

 

http://aarongleeman.com/tag/terry-ryan/

[Thegrin]

With the Twins current starting pitchers (and no games played) I do not fear any matchups with Central division opponents (including KC).

 

If the Twins equal their 2014 hitting, they have the ability to hit any pitcher.

 

This means that the Twins are likely to have a winning record agains the AL Central.

 

Of course, on May 1, I may wake up and see the reality...but I hope not 

[Kwak]

The trend for KC is:  UP.  Following a trend makes more sense than predicting that the trend should immediately reverse.  This seems (to me) more true for KC because their players are young, but experienced and should be moving into (or already there) the prime of their careers. One should expect a slight improvement is more likely than a "step back". My comments for other teams will be delayed until their threads have been started.

[tobi0040]

Ashbury,

 

It was a slightly fun shot at terry. But I think terry is wrong. I think we would miss a ton if we take one of the worst corner outfielders and throw him in center. Even for a few games.