I am 100 percent with you on all the bunting. I actually debated with another fan about this very subject on Facebook last night. The way the Royals are clutch hitting, I don't think you can afford to be giving away outs.From a previous article, I have always been a huge supporter of Dayton Moore, but I think it is time for a change. At the very least I think a complete new coaching staff is in order. I so much enjoy your articles.
Thanks for reading, Paul! Yeah, giving away outs against a team you know is very likely to score five or more is just a bad strategy. I get it at times, but not in the case of last night.
Having a bad offense just creates such a vicious cycle. When you're at the bottom of the league in walks and homers and always playing from behind, I imagine it would be tempting (just for the morale of the team) to bunt a guy to third in an effort to get ahead of somebody 1-0.
Still, bad idea in reality, and the solution is solving this decades-long plague of the Royals never bringing any sort of power or plate discipline to the table over the course of a full season.
Yes, 100%. You fight to produce any run you can, but then you don't produce any runs and it's even worse. Honestly, it's probably a good thing in the long run that neither bunt ended up working because it helps that the bad process wasn't rewarded.
So after a win it may be a little easier so see the method in the what we think at times is the Royals' madness, even if we don't agree with it. Could this is it (disclaimer, I am a retired tax attorney (did you know that, as best I can remember from back in the day, that each section of the Internal Revenue Code was just one sentence - mind-boggling constructions of incredible run on sentences vying for the worst in English grammar?) - anyway, back to my own confusing run on sentence - that the Royals have not given up on Dozier (maybe because of his foolish extension, but maybe anyway) and O'Hearn - even if we think they should - that the Royals might still think that they can be part of a championship team - so that now is not the time to clear them out to make room to see what we have in Olivares - that they Royals for some reason I do not understand - have picked Rivera over Olivares to see what we have in him, either due to options or because they think he has a better chance to be part of that championship club - or could fetch more in a trade? I still wonder why they do not put Wade or Ervin on the IR, along with Holland, to give Kowar another chance to get going, as they (rightfully) gave to Lynch? Is it because they have admirable integrity about not putting someone on the IR unless they are truly injured - and because Dayton is stubbornly loyal about letting them finish out the year, even if they are blocking the chance to advance the club's future? Signed, Dazed and Confused.
The Royals have obviously not given up on Dozier, though he'd be a pretty obvious non-tender candidate without the extension he signed. As for O'Hearn, he's a Matheny favorite, which was made very clear with all the comments about him last season, so he keeps getting shots. And while he's had some good games, the overall body of work remains poor. Since his return from the minors, he's shown serviceable power. But .263/.286/.449 still isn't good enough.
As for Rivera, I think the opportunity they're giving him is because they believe there won't be another in the future while there should almost always be a way to find time for an outfielder. I disagree with that, but I think it's the thought process.
And as for the IL for Erv or Wade, well, it's easier said than done to put a player who isn't hurt on the IL. It is somewhat about integrity as other teams likely abuse the IL, but there are also actual rules against using the IL that way.
I am 100 percent with you on all the bunting. I actually debated with another fan about this very subject on Facebook last night. The way the Royals are clutch hitting, I don't think you can afford to be giving away outs.From a previous article, I have always been a huge supporter of Dayton Moore, but I think it is time for a change. At the very least I think a complete new coaching staff is in order. I so much enjoy your articles.
Thanks for reading, Paul! Yeah, giving away outs against a team you know is very likely to score five or more is just a bad strategy. I get it at times, but not in the case of last night.
Having a bad offense just creates such a vicious cycle. When you're at the bottom of the league in walks and homers and always playing from behind, I imagine it would be tempting (just for the morale of the team) to bunt a guy to third in an effort to get ahead of somebody 1-0.
Still, bad idea in reality, and the solution is solving this decades-long plague of the Royals never bringing any sort of power or plate discipline to the table over the course of a full season.
Yes, 100%. You fight to produce any run you can, but then you don't produce any runs and it's even worse. Honestly, it's probably a good thing in the long run that neither bunt ended up working because it helps that the bad process wasn't rewarded.
So after a win it may be a little easier so see the method in the what we think at times is the Royals' madness, even if we don't agree with it. Could this is it (disclaimer, I am a retired tax attorney (did you know that, as best I can remember from back in the day, that each section of the Internal Revenue Code was just one sentence - mind-boggling constructions of incredible run on sentences vying for the worst in English grammar?) - anyway, back to my own confusing run on sentence - that the Royals have not given up on Dozier (maybe because of his foolish extension, but maybe anyway) and O'Hearn - even if we think they should - that the Royals might still think that they can be part of a championship team - so that now is not the time to clear them out to make room to see what we have in Olivares - that they Royals for some reason I do not understand - have picked Rivera over Olivares to see what we have in him, either due to options or because they think he has a better chance to be part of that championship club - or could fetch more in a trade? I still wonder why they do not put Wade or Ervin on the IR, along with Holland, to give Kowar another chance to get going, as they (rightfully) gave to Lynch? Is it because they have admirable integrity about not putting someone on the IR unless they are truly injured - and because Dayton is stubbornly loyal about letting them finish out the year, even if they are blocking the chance to advance the club's future? Signed, Dazed and Confused.
The Royals have obviously not given up on Dozier, though he'd be a pretty obvious non-tender candidate without the extension he signed. As for O'Hearn, he's a Matheny favorite, which was made very clear with all the comments about him last season, so he keeps getting shots. And while he's had some good games, the overall body of work remains poor. Since his return from the minors, he's shown serviceable power. But .263/.286/.449 still isn't good enough.
As for Rivera, I think the opportunity they're giving him is because they believe there won't be another in the future while there should almost always be a way to find time for an outfielder. I disagree with that, but I think it's the thought process.
And as for the IL for Erv or Wade, well, it's easier said than done to put a player who isn't hurt on the IL. It is somewhat about integrity as other teams likely abuse the IL, but there are also actual rules against using the IL that way.
was that a misprint with the attendance figure from last night game? wow!!!!! How far have we fallen.
It was not. Very, very sparse out there last night.