Originally Posted by CaliforniaChief (Post 9613834)

I also wonder if part of Hosmer/Moose's issues have come from our irregular schedule. Lots of days off, interruptions in the schedule, and NL Games (particularly with Hosmer and Butler coming in.)

Probably not, but I'm grasping.

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 9613809)

I'm just not ok with leaving guys up at the MLB level when they're playing so bad. (Hos has been terrible, let's not pretend otherwise). We stayed too long with Alex back in the day, but we did send Butler down and it helped a lot. Dayton sticks with guys too long and stunts their development. If he was concerned about them long term, sending them to Omaha right now won't hurt that. It might help. In fact I'm sure it would. But either way I'd tell them both that if they don't perform they don't stay. That's what loser small markets do: allow loser youngsters to keep playing no matter what.

Originally Posted by tomahawk kid (Post 9613841)

Wasn't the popular rumor last season that Hoz wouldn't accept coaching on his swing?

Originally Posted by Strongside (Post 9613838)

TL;DR

Originally Posted by siberian khatru (Post 9613833)

Prior to the Sunday games, I saw a few posts critical of the bullpen, which I think were mostly reactions to Herrera's homerlicious week.

This is a good piece that puts it in perspective:

http://www.royalsreview.com/2013/4/2...erfect-bullpen

What does any fan expect from their team's bullpen? Perfection.

After Greg Holland polished off his second save of the day last night, tell me a little part of you didn't say: 'If he only could have done that in Philadelphia, the Royals would be 11-6'. Right now, when you think if Kelvin Herrera, I would wager most of us remember four home runs surrendered as opposed to the 15 strikeouts in 9 innings of work.

That's life as a reliever: be perfect or move on.

The Royals' bullpen has been tagged with three losses so far this season and those hurt, but it hardly is a sign that this group is struggling. They have saved eight games and won three more. None of those wins were the bogus 'entered with a lead, gave it up and the offense saved us' type that relievers sometimes acquire. Only one of the wins and saves overlap. Thus, the relievers can squarely take credit for doing their jobs in all 10 of the Kansas City victories. If your bullpen comes through in 10 out of every 13 opportunities (not save opportunities, per se), I don't think you can complain.

While we rightfully scoff at pitcher wins and pitcher losses as a meaningful stat, there is no way for a bullpen to get tagged with the loss without, well, being less than perfect. The Cardinals' pen has four losses, the Reds' six and, in fact, ten teams' pens have accounted for more losses than the relievers for Kansas City. Only the Giants have more saves than the Royals. Losses and saves are crude stats, but in the pursuit of perfection, they have some relevance.

Now, let's dig deeper.

Dayton Moore is smirking at all of us right now and with good reason. Thanks to a revamped starting rotation that is, so far, pitching extremely well, Kansas City relievers have logged the fewest innings of any group in the majors. Some of that is due, obviously, to the fact that many teams have played a couple more games than Kansas City and the Royals have had more than their share of off-days. Still, the Royals pen has thrown three less innings than any other team in the majors. Five less than Tampa and 11 less than Boston, the next two low totals in the American League and two teams that have played just one more game than the Royals.

Strikeouts per nine innings? Second in baseball and tenth in strikeout to walk ratio. Kansas City relievers have struck out 30% of the batters they have faced (best in the game) and allowed opponents to bat just .199 against them (4th overall). They have made opposing batters swing and miss 14% of the time, which is easily the best in baseball.

In pitching the fewest innings, the Royals' bullpen has thrown just 691 pitches: 45 less than any other team. By contrast, the Detroit bullpen has thrown 1,078 pitches already this season.

Sure, the relievers four walks per nine innings is a rate that needs to come down. Especially since Herrera and Holland have accounted for 10 of the 18 free passes. They have allowed the fifth highest home run rate in the majors thus far with Herrera allowing two-thirds of all the dingers given up. Those numbers need to improve, because, well....perfection.

Yes, we would all like to have three games back that the bullpen lost. We can rationalize bad starts and clearly see that hitting a baseball is really, really hard for the guys on offense (and humans in general). Yet, when the bullpen blows a late lead, it is painful and memorable. We expect perfection.

The Royals' bullpen is not perfect, but that doesn't mean they are not getting the job done. In a perfect baseball world, the best pitching staffs have good bullpens that don't throw very much and when they do, it is the better pitchers throwing. So far, thanks to outstanding starting pitching, that exact recipe has propelled the Royals to a 10-7 start.

Not exactly perfection, but close enough.

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 9613809)

I'm just not ok with leaving guys up at the MLB level when they're playing so bad. (Hos has been terrible, let's not pretend otherwise). We stayed too long with Alex back in the day, but we did send Butler down and it helped a lot. Dayton sticks with guys too long and stunts their development. If he was concerned about them long term, sending them to Omaha right now won't hurt that. It might help. In fact I'm sure it would. But either way I'd tell them both that if they don't perform they don't stay. That's what loser small markets do: allow loser youngsters to keep playing no matter what.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9613879)

They don't have alternatives. That's the issue.
.

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 9613899)

Don't care. The alternatives cannot possibly hit any worse than the two mutts have, so your loss is zero. The only argument you can make is that the mutts might pick it back up. This is certainly possible, but the problems are not confined to 2013. That's the whole point: they were abysmal the entire 2nd half of last year too. It's a clear trend. They're not ready for this level, or they aren't putting in the time & effort. Not sure which. You know Butler will hit because he's proven. But these two are not.


I see no reason why we can't put in reserves and expect them to produce the same, at least for 3 weeks or so. You really disagree?

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 9613899)

Don't care. The alternatives cannot possibly hit any worse than the two mutts have, so your loss is zero.

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 9613899)

Don't care. The alternatives cannot possibly hit any worse than the two mutts have, so your loss is zero. The only argument you can make is that the mutts might pick it back up. This is certainly possible, but the problems are not confined to 2013. That's the whole point: they were abysmal the entire 2nd half of last year too. It's a clear trend. They're not ready for this level, or they aren't putting in the time & effort. Not sure which. You know Butler will hit because he's proven. But these two are not.


I see no reason why we can't put in reserves and expect them to produce the same, at least for 3 weeks or so. You really disagree?

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9613918)

I suppose they could bench Moose for a few games.....i believe they have done this already?

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 9613899)

Don't care. The alternatives cannot possibly hit any worse than the two mutts have, so your loss is zero. The only argument you can make is that the mutts might pick it back up. This is certainly possible, but the problems are not confined to 2013. That's the whole point: they were abysmal the entire 2nd half of last year too. It's a clear trend. They're not ready for this level, or they aren't putting in the time & effort. Not sure which. You know Butler will hit because he's proven. But these two are not.


I see no reason why we can't put in reserves and expect them to produce the same, at least for 3 weeks or so. You really disagree?