The only move I don’t get is pulling the infield in with a 2 run lead. The others….look. The bullpen hasn’t been very good. If Staumount and Barlow can’t get the job done you really don’t have a lot of good options anyway. You have to use them when up….when becomes relevant…..but maybe not that relevant if the other options aren’t great. It looked like a fun game regardless of won.
The walks. How is it every single pitcher? I’m not saying pitching is easy….but i refuse to believe MLB pitchers…on any team…..CANT consistently throw strikes. I’m not saying walks won’t happen. But whatever the royals put up….it should be HALF …say 5%. It’s just a sign of a bad team/coaching.
I would say half would be a big ask because it would be the best walk rate since 1933, but it is definitely a huge problem that is obviously something that the coaching staff can't fix because it continues almost every single game.
I would imagine they're on the phones with Houston and Boston right now trying to get a deal done. The problem is that teams aren't fooled by a good 53 plate appearances. It's an interesting dance. I personally think it doesn't matter what you can get for him if you can get him off the team and clear the space, but there is at least an argument that I disagree with that he may have found his stroke and if you give it another 2-3 weeks, he'll be attractive for a better return/less money having to be eaten.
I'm with you on pulling the infield in with a two run lead. I don't think it mattered when you used the big two, they both were probably going to have face the top 4 in their lineup. The thing I don't understand is why a coach or a manager can't get Staumont to get up on the mound and pitch. I timed him last night. He threw 17 pitches to 3 batters and took him 11 minutes. That 39 seconds per pitch. It takes him forever to throw his warm up pitches. He literally drives me crazy. That is my rant for this morning.
It ultimately didn't matter, which is why I was on the fence, but my first thought on it was that I'd have gone to Barlow there because, at that moment, it was the biggest part of the game. Like I said, he had the same situation and had basically the same result, so who knows?
Staumont is VERY slow on the mound. The pitch clock is going to be unkind to him at first, but I'm hoping it actually ends up helping him.
I'm right there with you! I was timing Staumont last night. From the time he received the ball from the ump or a teammate until he threw the next pitch it was consistently 32 to 40 seconds. With all that farting around, no wonder he walked the first two guys!
Tempo? Rhythm? Whodat?
If only the team had an employee whose job it was to coach the pitchers and help them correct these sorts of errors.
Like you I was ready to take a bite out of the remote when Matheny pulled the infield in in the sixth inning!
There's an old baseball aphorism that "pulling the infield in adds 100 points to the batter's BA." Even a million years ago when I was a kid addicted to strat-o-matic baseball I thought it couldn't possibly be that simple - it has to vary with the ground ball/fly ball ratios of both the hitter and pitcher involved. (Among other variables.)
I don’t know what the numbers specifically say, but there would obviously be a slightly smaller gap for a hitter who doesn’t hit a lot ground balls, but it also impacts bloops because the infielder couldn’t get back to field them. So it’s not THAT simple, but even for a guy who hits like 25% ground balls, they’d be boosted pretty significantly because the more ground there is to drop a ball in, the better for the hitter.
We've heard GMDM intone over and over again, almost as an affirmation of faith, that "we don't shop our guys. Ever."
He's not GM anymore, but he is the GM's boss. What do you think the chances are that someone (anyone!) in the front office has INITIATED trade talks involving Santana or any other Royal?
Or are they just going to continue to sit back passively, waiting for another team's GM to call and propose the trade that will magically vault the Royals back into relevance?
I can promise you that they’ve contacted teams about Santana. I can also promise you that they haven’t been met with so much as an offer. Up until the last few weeks, any team that might even be remotely interested probably felt like they could just wait for the DFA.
Sounds as if you're extremely confident that they have changed policies and are now "shopping their guys." Any idea when and why that policy change occurred?
IMO just because DM said "we have to be more transactional" doesn't necessarily mean that he actually intends to do that.
They never had a “policy” about it, but Dayton has always been way too loyal about players. And I don’t care what he said about never shopping players because they’ve absolutely shopped players. What they don’t do often, if at all, is shop players who are under team control beyond that season.
David - it's interesting to me, what you said about DM only shopping guys who are (presumably) in their last year of team control. Maybe such players no longer fit his definition of "our guys"? Which somehow makes it "okay" for him to shop them?
Has somebody in a position to know flat-out told you that? Or is that a conclusion that you've reached after years of observing the club so closely?
Couldn't agree with you more about his whole "we love our guys more than anybody else loves their guys" thing. IMO that has done significant damage to this franchise over the past 16 years. There's no telling what opportunities were missed because of it.
I didn't say he only shops guys who are in their last year of team control. I just only know of him shopping guys in the last year of team control. I'm not exceptionally well-sourced, but I have a few very good sources, which I will leave that ambiguous because that's how you keep those sources.
That's why I threw that "presumably" in there. And I certainly had no intent to try to put any of your sources at risk. To the contrary! I hope you have as many sources - and well placed-ones at that - as you possibly can. Combine that with your serious analytical skills and knowledge of the game, and that's why I value your newsletter so much!
In particular I value how you synthesize the analytics approach with the "eye test" approach. One of my core beliefs is that there is room, and a need, for both - and not just in the world of sports.
You got me to thinking, so I looked up the Cueto and Zobrist trades. Apparently DM thinks that minor-leaguers don't qualify as "our guys" who are allegedly immune from being shopped, with the exception that you mentioned before. (Okay, so Brandon Finnegan was sort of minor league-ish.)
But it begs a question: what exactly does a guy have to do or be in order to be one of Dayton's "our guys"? - i.e., the guys whom Dayton is going to love more than anybody else loves his own guys. And what are the exclusion criteria?
Or to look at another trade: why was, for example, MJ Melendez apparently one of "our guys" while Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi clearly were not? (Not that I'm critical of the decision to keep MJ around. I'm just wondering what the difference is or was.)
I still think the biggest problem the Royals have is management and the pitching coach. It makes sense to start getting a reliever ready when the starting pitcher begins to fade--especially if he hasn't been with the team very long and how fast he'll fade is unknown. I'm also wondering if the Royals need to trade Carlos Santana. I think he will be a big help to the younger players coming up from AAA and he seems to have his mojo back. If Benintendi wants to try his luck with another team, or if any other player does, I'd grant them their wish and trade them ASAP. Nothing destroys teamwork more than someone who doesn't want to be on the team. I think the Royals have a lot of future potential. I've said before that Ned Yost, the last manager, was pretty hard-headed initially, but managed to listen to and work with the players well enough to go to two World Series. An important trait for any manager in any situation is to ask for as much advice and input as possible before making a final decision. The players want to win a championship as much as anybody else in the organization.
The only move I don’t get is pulling the infield in with a 2 run lead. The others….look. The bullpen hasn’t been very good. If Staumount and Barlow can’t get the job done you really don’t have a lot of good options anyway. You have to use them when up….when becomes relevant…..but maybe not that relevant if the other options aren’t great. It looked like a fun game regardless of won.
The walks. How is it every single pitcher? I’m not saying pitching is easy….but i refuse to believe MLB pitchers…on any team…..CANT consistently throw strikes. I’m not saying walks won’t happen. But whatever the royals put up….it should be HALF …say 5%. It’s just a sign of a bad team/coaching.
I would say half would be a big ask because it would be the best walk rate since 1933, but it is definitely a huge problem that is obviously something that the coaching staff can't fix because it continues almost every single game.
Can we trade Santana now? His value can’t be any higher than it is this very second. After each hit last night, I had to smile and shake my head.
I was at The Big A last night. It was a crazy, fun game. My takeaways as I left the park:
1) Bobby Witt, Jr. is the man.
2) Ohtani is a global phenomenon
3) Barlow needs to mix in a fastball (and a haircut)
4) Trade Santana NOW
I would imagine they're on the phones with Houston and Boston right now trying to get a deal done. The problem is that teams aren't fooled by a good 53 plate appearances. It's an interesting dance. I personally think it doesn't matter what you can get for him if you can get him off the team and clear the space, but there is at least an argument that I disagree with that he may have found his stroke and if you give it another 2-3 weeks, he'll be attractive for a better return/less money having to be eaten.
I'm with you on pulling the infield in with a two run lead. I don't think it mattered when you used the big two, they both were probably going to have face the top 4 in their lineup. The thing I don't understand is why a coach or a manager can't get Staumont to get up on the mound and pitch. I timed him last night. He threw 17 pitches to 3 batters and took him 11 minutes. That 39 seconds per pitch. It takes him forever to throw his warm up pitches. He literally drives me crazy. That is my rant for this morning.
It ultimately didn't matter, which is why I was on the fence, but my first thought on it was that I'd have gone to Barlow there because, at that moment, it was the biggest part of the game. Like I said, he had the same situation and had basically the same result, so who knows?
Staumont is VERY slow on the mound. The pitch clock is going to be unkind to him at first, but I'm hoping it actually ends up helping him.
I'm right there with you! I was timing Staumont last night. From the time he received the ball from the ump or a teammate until he threw the next pitch it was consistently 32 to 40 seconds. With all that farting around, no wonder he walked the first two guys!
Tempo? Rhythm? Whodat?
If only the team had an employee whose job it was to coach the pitchers and help them correct these sorts of errors.
Like you I was ready to take a bite out of the remote when Matheny pulled the infield in in the sixth inning!
There's an old baseball aphorism that "pulling the infield in adds 100 points to the batter's BA." Even a million years ago when I was a kid addicted to strat-o-matic baseball I thought it couldn't possibly be that simple - it has to vary with the ground ball/fly ball ratios of both the hitter and pitcher involved. (Among other variables.)
Your thoughts?
I don’t know what the numbers specifically say, but there would obviously be a slightly smaller gap for a hitter who doesn’t hit a lot ground balls, but it also impacts bloops because the infielder couldn’t get back to field them. So it’s not THAT simple, but even for a guy who hits like 25% ground balls, they’d be boosted pretty significantly because the more ground there is to drop a ball in, the better for the hitter.
We've heard GMDM intone over and over again, almost as an affirmation of faith, that "we don't shop our guys. Ever."
He's not GM anymore, but he is the GM's boss. What do you think the chances are that someone (anyone!) in the front office has INITIATED trade talks involving Santana or any other Royal?
Or are they just going to continue to sit back passively, waiting for another team's GM to call and propose the trade that will magically vault the Royals back into relevance?
I can promise you that they’ve contacted teams about Santana. I can also promise you that they haven’t been met with so much as an offer. Up until the last few weeks, any team that might even be remotely interested probably felt like they could just wait for the DFA.
Sounds as if you're extremely confident that they have changed policies and are now "shopping their guys." Any idea when and why that policy change occurred?
IMO just because DM said "we have to be more transactional" doesn't necessarily mean that he actually intends to do that.
They never had a “policy” about it, but Dayton has always been way too loyal about players. And I don’t care what he said about never shopping players because they’ve absolutely shopped players. What they don’t do often, if at all, is shop players who are under team control beyond that season.
I'm on the west coast and still need a nap after that one!
David - it's interesting to me, what you said about DM only shopping guys who are (presumably) in their last year of team control. Maybe such players no longer fit his definition of "our guys"? Which somehow makes it "okay" for him to shop them?
Has somebody in a position to know flat-out told you that? Or is that a conclusion that you've reached after years of observing the club so closely?
Couldn't agree with you more about his whole "we love our guys more than anybody else loves their guys" thing. IMO that has done significant damage to this franchise over the past 16 years. There's no telling what opportunities were missed because of it.
I didn't say he only shops guys who are in their last year of team control. I just only know of him shopping guys in the last year of team control. I'm not exceptionally well-sourced, but I have a few very good sources, which I will leave that ambiguous because that's how you keep those sources.
That's why I threw that "presumably" in there. And I certainly had no intent to try to put any of your sources at risk. To the contrary! I hope you have as many sources - and well placed-ones at that - as you possibly can. Combine that with your serious analytical skills and knowledge of the game, and that's why I value your newsletter so much!
In particular I value how you synthesize the analytics approach with the "eye test" approach. One of my core beliefs is that there is room, and a need, for both - and not just in the world of sports.
You got me to thinking, so I looked up the Cueto and Zobrist trades. Apparently DM thinks that minor-leaguers don't qualify as "our guys" who are allegedly immune from being shopped, with the exception that you mentioned before. (Okay, so Brandon Finnegan was sort of minor league-ish.)
But it begs a question: what exactly does a guy have to do or be in order to be one of Dayton's "our guys"? - i.e., the guys whom Dayton is going to love more than anybody else loves his own guys. And what are the exclusion criteria?
Or to look at another trade: why was, for example, MJ Melendez apparently one of "our guys" while Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi clearly were not? (Not that I'm critical of the decision to keep MJ around. I'm just wondering what the difference is or was.)
I still think the biggest problem the Royals have is management and the pitching coach. It makes sense to start getting a reliever ready when the starting pitcher begins to fade--especially if he hasn't been with the team very long and how fast he'll fade is unknown. I'm also wondering if the Royals need to trade Carlos Santana. I think he will be a big help to the younger players coming up from AAA and he seems to have his mojo back. If Benintendi wants to try his luck with another team, or if any other player does, I'd grant them their wish and trade them ASAP. Nothing destroys teamwork more than someone who doesn't want to be on the team. I think the Royals have a lot of future potential. I've said before that Ned Yost, the last manager, was pretty hard-headed initially, but managed to listen to and work with the players well enough to go to two World Series. An important trait for any manager in any situation is to ask for as much advice and input as possible before making a final decision. The players want to win a championship as much as anybody else in the organization.