They aren't making moves for young players, they aren't improving their team and we got DM saying core like the team is good, dude is not good at this job anymore. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
The more this plays out the more I think DM is a bumbling stooge that lucked into a championship because he had years of high picks from unintentionally tanking.
Haven't we known that for a while? The Championship required an incredible amount of luck, especially with the pitching. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
The more this plays out the more I think DM is a bumbling stooge that lucked into a championship because he had years of high picks from unintentionally tanking.
Of course it was luck. Sorta.
I mean he had a super bullpen before super bullpens were cool. And then teams went about trying to purchase or even trade for pieces to build super bullpens of their own.
But you CAN'T. You just kinda fall into stuff like that because reliever volatility makes that sort of thing impossible. The idea that there is any amount of money or trade capital you can throw at the market to get a bullpen that pitched like that set of !@#$ing cyborgs pitched for a couple of years is laughable.
Just as laughable as the notion that DM set out to build a bullpen like that. It just sorta happened when a 10th round pick, a cheap international flier and a failed starter went OFF for 24 months. The bullpen was a happy accident. Most truly excellent bullpens are. Because there's just so little consistency/predictability in bullpen performance.
Now where he does deserve a ton of credit was his realization in '14 and '15 that he HAD a super bullpen and he needs to do things to capitalize on that. Y'all don't win the championship without Cueto and Zobrist; Moore deserves a ton of credit for those decisions. [Reply]
It's amazing to me that there are still "Cueto deniers" among the Royals fandom, rather, folks who say Cueto wasn't necessary to the Royals 2015 title. They used to say the trade was "too expensive." Now that everyone involved in that trade has more or less burned out, they say things like "well the Royals scored 7 runs both games he started lel" as justification that the trade wasn't worth it.
The dude pitched two two hitters in the postseason. Cueto was gold, and if Chris Young got jumped for 5 runs against the Stros in Game 5, we wouldn't have had a chance to score 7 runs if Hinch doesn't pull McHugh too early (someone who probably mastered the Royals style better than any other pitcher that postseason). [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Of course it was luck. Sorta.
I mean he had a super bullpen before super bullpens were cool. And then teams went about trying to purchase or even trade for pieces to build super bullpens of their own.
But you CAN'T. You just kinda fall into stuff like that because reliever volatility makes that sort of thing impossible. The idea that there is any amount of money or trade capital you can throw at the market to get a bullpen that pitched like that set of !@#$ing cyborgs pitched for a couple of years is laughable.
Just as laughable as the notion that DM set out to build a bullpen like that. It just sorta happened when a 10th round pick, a cheap international flier and a failed starter went OFF for 24 months. The bullpen was a happy accident. Most truly excellent bullpens are. Because there's just so little consistency/predictability in bullpen performance.
Now where he does deserve a ton of credit was his realization in '14 and '15 that he HAD a super bullpen and he needs to do things to capitalize on that. Y'all don't win the championship without Cueto and Zobrist; Moore deserves a ton of credit for those decisions.
You could do that for any team who’s ever won a title. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
You could do that for any team who’s ever won a title.
Well some strategies are a lot more repeatable than others. I mean lets be real even the awesome sauce farm system he built didn't develop any superstars. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
You could do that for any team who’s ever won a title.
Little bit, sure.
But nothings less predictable in baseball than bullpen performance. And the Royals won consecutive AL Pennants on the back of a bullpen that was dominant for 2 seasons and HISTORICALLY so for one of them.
You can put an element of luck on any championship, yes. But when you build a team around the one thing that's essentially impossible to count on in that sport AND in the process you get a performance that's not just unexpected and not just great, but almost certainly better than any team in baseball history has ever had while committing a paucity of resources to it....well there's more luck there than most. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Little bit, sure.
But nothings less predictable in baseball than bullpen performance. And the Royals won consecutive AL Pennants on the back of a bullpen that was dominant for 2 seasons and HISTORICALLY so for one of them.
You can put an element of luck on any championship, yes. But when you build a team around the one thing that's essentially impossible to count on in that sport AND in the process you get a performance that's not just unexpected and not just great, but almost certainly better than any team in baseball history has ever had while committing a paucity of resources to it....well there's more luck there than most.
There are things that can be consistent, for example the Cubs drafted a bunch of hitters with their high picks because they're easier to predict. That's a strategy not lucking into something. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Little bit, sure.
No, not a little bit. Fully. MLB is easily the hardest to do it in anyway given the (1) massive payroll disparity and (2) long lead time of personnel coming they the development pipeline.
Originally Posted by :
But nothings less predictable in baseball than bullpen performance. And the Royals won consecutive AL Pennants on the back of a bullpen that was dominant for 2 seasons and HISTORICALLY so for one of them.
Who said it was “on the back of a bullpen”? We won 89 and 95 games in the AL (!) becasue of a bullpen? Sounds like bull-shit, bro.
Originally Posted by :
You can put an element of luck on any championship, yes. But when you build a team around the one thing that's essentially impossible to count on in that sport AND in the process you get a performance that's not just unexpected and not just great, but almost certainly better than any team in baseball history has ever had while committing a paucity of resources to it....well there's more luck there than most.
The Royals 3 were dominant for several years so the whole Blake Treinen types of comparisons won’t work. They went 22-9 in those playoff runs too, so they dominated the best teams. They very easily could’ve won both WS.
If you want to talk luck here’s my advice: the 14 wild card game and 15 Alds 4 [Reply]
The tax threshold was $170M in 2010, and $197M in 2018, a jump of 16%. MLB revenue jumped from $6.1B in 2010 to $10.3B in 2018. That’s a 69% jump. If the threshold had moved with revenues, it would have been more than $250M two years ago, and higher today.
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
No, not a little bit. Fully. MLB is easily the hardest to do it in anyway given the (1) massive payroll disparity and (2) long lead time of personnel coming they the development pipeline.
Who said it was “on the back of a bullpen”? We won 89 and 95 games in the AL (!) becasue of a bullpen? Sounds like bull-shit, bro.
The Royals 3 were dominant for several years so the whole Blake Treinen types of comparisons won’t work. They went 22-9 in those playoff runs too, so they dominated the best teams. They very easily could’ve won both WS.
If you want to talk luck here’s my advice: the 14 wild card game and 15 Alds 4
The '14 team has a TON of luck in it. A) 89 wins ain't shit in an environment where far too many teams don't even try anymore. B) You said it yourself, the play-in game.
And surely you'll recognize how the Royals style of play could've only worked when they knew full well that the opponent wasn't scoring past the 6th. You give either of those teams merely a GOOD bullpen and they don't win a championship. The '14 team likely doesn't even make the playoffs.
The Royals could be patient and play for 1 run at a time with their low power, low OBP, high speed and high contact offense because they knew in the late innings they were shooting at a fixed target. Whatever number of runs the opponent had, that's how many they were gonna get. The stress that put on teams (who KNEW they had to start hot) and the confidence that gave the Royals (who knew they could just keep chippin' away) was unreal.
That's why the Royals kept breaking prediction models - because nobody had a good way to account for the fundamental ways that their insane bullpen changed the way those games were played. They simply went off script.
And regarding the extended duration - I agree that the Big 3 weren't a Blake Treinen situation, but they also weren't guys who anyone had pegged as studs BEFORE the 2014 season. Nobody was reasonably relying on those 3 guys to set records. Their ascension came from left field and was the central component to both of those pennants. [Reply]
The tax threshold was $170M in 2010, and $197M in 2018, a jump of 16%. MLB revenue jumped from $6.1B in 2010 to $10.3B in 2018. That’s a 69% jump. If the threshold had moved with revenues, it would have been more than $250M two years ago, and higher today.
Or they could just stop fucking around with all this nonsense and put in hard caps and floors, tie spending to revenue and quit bitching.
I'm just beyond tired of listening to sportwriters carp about the raw deal the players are getting. You have a problem with it, come correct to the negotiating table next time and/or insist on better leadership.
Oh, or be demonstrably BETTER than dudes that cost 1/3 of what you do. Still can't believe I saw someone on Twitter bemoaning the injustice of Kevin Pillar NOT getting $9 million this season.
Any organization that gives Kevin Pillar guaranteed money deserves to be pilloried by baseball Twitter, not saluted. That dude's an out machine and a non-roster invite waiting to happen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
The '14 team has a TON of luck in it. A) 89 wins ain't shit in an environment where far too many teams don't even try anymore. B) You said it yourself, the play-in game.
Teams weren’t tanking then. I reject that argument. We have the 3-year win total for the Royals > any other AL team so competitive environment is 100% irrelevant anyway.
Originally Posted by :
And surely you'll recognize how the Royals style of play could've only worked when they knew full well that the opponent wasn't scoring past the 6th. You give either of those teams merely a GOOD bullpen and they don't win a championship. The '14 team likely doesn't even make the playoffs.
The Royals bullpen was T-3 in 2014 in fWAR. 5.6. The other playoff teams were largely in the 4.0+ range. Therefore by math, the Royals picked up 1-2 games on the field that season. Big whoop.
Originally Posted by :
The Royals could be patient and play for 1 run at a time with their low power, low OBP, high speed and high contact offense because they knew in the late innings they were shooting at a fixed target. Whatever number of runs the opponent had, that's how many they were gonna get. The stress that put on teams (who KNEW they had to start hot) and the confidence that gave the Royals (who knew they could just keep chippin' away) was unreal.
In the playoffs. Not during the season, too many games. And in 14 we had too much garbage like Aaron Crow and Louis Coleman and Tim Collins putting in 100 IP of negative WAR.
If the Big 3 lifted us to 89 wins the Little 3 dragged us from reaching 91.
Originally Posted by :
That's why the Royals kept breaking prediction models - because nobody had a good way to account for the fundamental ways that their insane bullpen changed the way those games were played. They simply went off script.
There are multiple theories on why they beat projections and bullpen over performance is just one of many. And is not conclusively accepted by aabermetricians anyway.
Originally Posted by :
And regarding the extended duration - I agree that the Big 3 weren't a Blake Treinen situation, but they also weren't guys who anyone had pegged as studs BEFORE the 2014 season. Nobody was reasonably relying on those 3 guys to set records. Their ascension came from left field and was the central component to both of those pennants.
Not to quibble but Holland saved 48 games in 13 and Herrera and Davis were both top rated prospects in their systems that reached mlb quickly and never left. [Reply]