The Kansas City Model

[harfman77]

Correction....three decades.

 

I knew someone would catch that as soon as I posted it.

[Chisoxfn]

I knew someone would catch that as soon as I posted it.

Here is a question, would you rather be relevant and in playoff contention 80% of the time (making the playoffs more often then not while not winning the series) or be relevant once every 30 years and win the series that one time. For me I'll take the relevant and not winning series vs. extended periods of irrelevance.

[Kyyle23]

Here is a question, would you rather be relevant and in playoff contention 80% of the time (making the playoffs more often then not while not winning the series) or be relevant once every 30 years and win the series that one time. For me I'll take the relevant and not winning series vs. extended periods of irrelevance.

 

Yea, i would much rather my favorite team consistently being in contention than surprise me and catch lightning in a bottle.

 

 

[shysocks]

Yea, i would much rather my favorite team consistently being in contention than surprise me and catch lightning in a bottle.

Same thing. 30 years is a long time...

[southsider2k5]

Here is a question, would you rather be relevant and in playoff contention 80% of the time (making the playoffs more often then not while not winning the series) or be relevant once every 30 years and win the series that one time. For me I'll take the relevant and not winning series vs. extended periods of irrelevance.

 

It is about 75 years better than the Cubs model...

[Eminor3rd]

I knew someone would catch that as soon as I posted it.

 

Nah, one decade is fair for "the model." They failed for longer than that, but this current GMDM attempt is closer to a decade.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Vance Law]

So does Dayton Moore get a movie made about him now, or is his one pennant above the maximum allowed for a film subject?

 

Has anyone written a book about him?

[GreenSox]

Our fielding percentage and the Royals was almost identical.

Range, man, range.

Fielding percentage reveals little about defense.

Startling stat above- near 140 run differential between woeful sox D and Royal D.?

Edited October 17, 2014 by GreenSox

[caulfield12]

C Sal Perez over Flowers, not even close...Perez is one of the best catchers in baseball

3B Moustakas (although he makes a lot more errors than he should) over Gillaspie, not even close

SS Escobar, slight edge over Ramirez

2B wash

1B Hosmer has made more errors this year, but he's already won a Gold Glove

LF best versus worst OF defenders in baseball

CF Dyson/Cain, slight edge over Eaton

RF Cain/Aoki...big edge over A. Garcia

 

We don't have a single position of advantage. SS and CF are close, but nobody would pick Ramirez and Eaton over Alcides Esobar/Cain/Dyson.

 

You MIGHT be able to argue Carlos Sanchez/Leury over Infante if they could hit well enough to justify their starting position.

Edited October 17, 2014 by caulfield12

[GreenSox]

C Sal Perez over Flowers, not even close...Perez is one of the best catchers in baseball

3B Moustakas (although he makes a lot more errors than he should) over Gillaspie, not even close

SS Escobar, slight edge over Ramirez

2B wash

1B Hosmer has made more errors this year, but he's already won a Gold Glove

LF best versus worst OF defenders in baseball

CF Dyson/Cain, slight edge over Eaton

RF Cain/Aoki...big edge over A. Garcia

 

We don't have a single position of advantage. SS and CF are close, but nobody would pick Ramirez and Eaton over Alcides Esobar/Cain/Dyson.

 

You MIGHT be able to argue Carlos Sanchez/Leury over Infante if they could hit well enough to justify their starting position.

Of course, the Royals are exceptional defensively. Upgrades at 3B and LF and 2B would help immensely.

 

[harfman77]

Here is a question, would you rather be relevant and in playoff contention 80% of the time (making the playoffs more often then not while not winning the series) or be relevant once every 30 years and win the series that one time. For me I'll take the relevant and not winning series vs. extended periods of irrelevance.

 

I think the goal is to always be relevant, the problem is that sometimes franchises get caught in the middle where they really are not a threat to contend but aren't at the bottom either collecting talent. The Cubs were an example of this for a long time, the Indians are right now.

 

Before RH, the Sox were that team that you mention and KW did all he could to keep the Sox right there. The 2005 season was more of what the Royals have this season, the Sox were a team that were there all season and really caught fire in the playoffs. The only problem with what happened under KF is that he sacrificed the future to try and put the team over the top each year, stretching payroll and unloading prospects which led to the re-build that RH has commenced.

 

Yes, I agree, I will take relevant because anytime you can be the team that catches fire and makes a run deep in the playoffs.

[Eminor3rd]

Jerk

 

I don't dislike metrics I just a lot more has to be thought of then just spitting out the metric. I also still think defensive metrics have their flaws, but they have been improving significantly and the value of defense is at an all time high over the past 20 years given the fact that we appear to be in a low scoring era. I also think a lot of the general saber themes have to be revisited (e.g., playing for the long ball, etc) as a lot of those decision points likely change given that in general, the value of a run is more important now than it was 5 years ago.

 

The bolded is 100% true. The frustrating part is that they all HAVE been revisited and rethought, but the mainstream media still cling to every conclusion from Moneyball, clearly having missed the ENTIRE idea of the book, which was NOT "steals are bad, bunts are bad, defense is overrated, homers are king, walks are king," but rather "use sabermetrics to identify over and undervalued skills in the current marketplace/run environment, and acquire/punt skillsets depending on conditions." That those aforementioned concepts happened to be the overvalued and undervalued skills/strategies in 2002 has been the bane of the SABR-friendly fan over the last seven or eight years. Because people like Hawk and Joe Morgan were offended by Michale Lewis' tone as it was filtered through the media and never bothered to read any of it in the first place.

 

Not a criticism against you at all, but the mainstream in general.

[Chisoxfn]

The bolded is 100% true. The frustrating part is that they all HAVE been revisited and rethought, but the mainstream media still cling to every conclusion from Moneyball, clearly having missed the ENTIRE idea of the book, which was NOT "steals are bad, bunts are bad, defense is overrated, homers are king, walks are king," but rather "use sabermetrics to identify over and undervalued skills in the current marketplace/run environment, and acquire/punt skillsets depending on conditions." That those aforementioned concepts happened to be the overvalued and undervalued skills/strategies in 2002 has been the bane of the SABR-friendly fan over the last seven or eight years. Because people like Hawk and Joe Morgan were offended by Michale Lewis' tone as it was filtered through the media and never bothered to read any of it in the first place.

 

Not a criticism against you at all, but the mainstream in general.

I fully grasp the above concept and have always understood moneyball with the impression that it wasn't that walks and homers were king, it was really more that walks were being extremely underrated and under valued in relation to their importance to their game and I have never had a problem with sabs it is more that I Think a lot of people severely misuse them and don't have a thorough enough understanding of the limitations of various aspects (but that is another debate and I will also say I guarantee there are some stats that I once went into in depth that have since been revamped and I may not be aware of that). I

 

However, I think a similar approach is still being taken by a lot of people in certain areas and if you look at the difference in runs between the Royals and Sox defense, you are talking about nearly a run per game difference. That is insanely huge, especially in an era where there are few elite hitters. The reality is, when it comes to helping the net run differential, if I'm the Sox, I might be able to make far bigger impacts by cleaning up my defense and pitching staff then I can by acquiring bonafide impact bats (and I say that because there are just so few of them available).

[Eminor3rd]

I fully grasp the above concept and have always understood moneyball with the impression that it wasn't that walks and homers were king, it was really more that walks were being extremely underrated and under valued in relation to their importance to their game and I have never had a problem with sabs it is more that I Think a lot of people severely misuse them and don't have a thorough enough understanding of the limitations of various aspects (but that is another debate and I will also say I guarantee there are some stats that I once went into in depth that have since been revamped and I may not be aware of that). I

 

However, I think a similar approach is still being taken by a lot of people in certain areas and if you look at the difference in runs between the Royals and Sox defense, you are talking about nearly a run per game difference. That is insanely huge, especially in an era where there are few elite hitters. The reality is, when it comes to helping the net run differential, if I'm the Sox, I might be able to make far bigger impacts by cleaning up my defense and pitching staff then I can by acquiring bonafide impact bats (and I say that because there are just so few of them available).

 

I think that's an argument I can get behind.

[witesoxfan]

The hardest thing for us to comprehend about defense at this point is just how intangible it really is. A guy who hits 40 homers a year is something we can see and count and say "this guy absolutely does this." We can see it leave the yard. With defense, it's harder for us (but getting better and more accessible all the time) to say "that is a great defensive play that not many make" versus "WOW HE DOVE WHAT A REACTION."

 

I think as we learn to grasp the importance and how to value defense more and more as time goes on, we will see guys rewarded appropriately.

[shysocks]

Here is a question, would you rather be relevant and in playoff contention 80% of the time (making the playoffs more often then not while not winning the series) or be relevant once every 30 years and win the series that one time. For me I'll take the relevant and not winning series vs. extended periods of irrelevance.

Bringing this up again because Dave Cameron wrote an article about where he was wrong about the Royals that relates to a whole bunch of things the question you asked, and also the discussion about how well modern analytics pivots when things change.

 

The gist is that it may be a much bigger deal for a mediocre team to turn itself into an 85-win team than we thought, because of the vast benefits of the gamble paying off.

Edited October 17, 2014 by shysocks

[chitownsportsfan]

The Royals aren't model of anything accept luck! Goodness. They were a good, not great team, that slid into the playoffs and have won 11 in a row. 11. in. a. row.

 

If you want to say that a mediocre (at best) offense coupled with average starting pitching, an elite pen, and very good defense is the new model, well, whatever. Everyone knows defense is half of run prevention, nobody needed the Royals lucky run to tell them that.

Edited October 17, 2014 by chitownsportsfan

[VAfan]

However you assemble it, this postseason has shown us the value of a high-quality bullpen.

 

It's not just KC. Baltimore has a better bullpen than it does starting pitching. The same might be true of the Giants.

 

There is no question in my mind that the Sox bullpen was the #1 reason we finished next to last. With KC's or even the Orioles bullpen (and a manager who knew how to deploy it), we could have contended for a wild card slot.

[Balta1701]

However you assemble it, this postseason has shown us the value of a high-quality bullpen.

 

It's not just KC. Baltimore has a better bullpen than it does starting pitching. The same might be true of the Giants.

 

There is no question in my mind that the Sox bullpen was the #1 reason we finished next to last. With KC's or even the Orioles bullpen (and a manager who knew how to deploy it), we could have contended for a wild card slot.

Just a note...KC's bullpen actually on the whole season was not better than Baltimore's. KCs park played a little more hitter friendly and so they wound up with a slightly worse ERA, but Baltimore's pen pitched 10% more innings, walked fewer people, gave up a slightly lower OPS (again add in a park adjustment). Seattle and Oakland are right there too, with better numbers than both but again park adjustments factored in.

 

it's a piece but not the only one.

[bmags]

You just got to get to the playoffs. To do that we need to replace our below average players with above average players at at least 4 positions.

[caulfield12]

Just a note...KC's bullpen actually on the whole season was not better than Baltimore's. KCs park played a little more hitter friendly and so they wound up with a slightly worse ERA, but Baltimore's pen pitched 10% more innings, walked fewer people, gave up a slightly lower OPS (again add in a park adjustment). Seattle and Oakland are right there too, with better numbers than both but again park adjustments factored in.

 

it's a piece but not the only one.

 

The curse of Scott downs.

[thxfrthmmrs]

Even then, there's a big difference between Nate Jones/Cleto and Herrera at 97-101. Or Henry Rodriguez, etc.

 

Williams tried those arms like MacDougal, Aardsma, Masset and Sisco, and they all flamed out with the Sox. He tried ever since he ditched Foulke for a burned out shell of his former self in Billy Koch in 2003.

 

 

Montas will likely be the next flamethrower in the pen. Nobody has his stuff in the organization. Webb's not even close, not the way he threw in 2014. Maybe the 2013 minor league version.

 

One can imagine Petricka or Guerra ending up like a Greg Holland, but that still leaves us short a Cliff Politte and Neal Cotts.

 

Let's not forget how effective guys like Neshek and Uehara with unorthodox motions can be. Darren O'Day's another example.

 

I smiled a little reading this post. You really outdid yourself.

[GreenSox]

Should look at the San Francisco model.

Sabean was lampooned second only to Kenny Williams by the sabre crowd (although they deny it now).

[RockRaines]

Lots of luck and good pitching.

 

Not a very repeatable model

[LittleHurt05]

Just a note...KC's bullpen actually on the whole season was not better than Baltimore's. KCs park played a little more hitter friendly and so they wound up with a slightly worse ERA, but Baltimore's pen pitched 10% more innings, walked fewer people, gave up a slightly lower OPS (again add in a park adjustment). Seattle and Oakland are right there too, with better numbers than both but again park adjustments factored in.

 

it's a piece but not the only one.

 

Those stats include guys like Bruce Chen, Francisley Bueno (who?), Michael Mariot, Aaron Crow, & Louis Coleman, who all had ERAs over 4 and most likely rarely appeared in important situations.

 

Their three-headed monster had an ERA of 1.28 over 204.1 IP with 53 holds and 46 saves. The rest of the bullpen had 22 holds and 4 saves.

 

Your entire bullpen isn't that important, just the guys that come in when the game is on the line.