Really Rob....?
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-...central-041315
Sorry for weird characters... Copied from my phone
@robneyer
Are the Royals for real?
The answer is that no, of course they're not for real. After all, it's only six games. And then there's the little matter of all those projections that showed the Royals finishing third this season. Or fourth.
What's more? Every season, teams get off to hot starts of one sort or another, only to fade badly.
Last year, one week into May the Colorado Rockies were 22-14 and the Milwaukee Brewers were 22-13; those were the two best records in the National League. Afterward? The Brewers went 60-67 and the Rockies went*44-82, easily the worst post-May 7 record in the majors.
Do you remember when everyone was raving about the Rockies last spring? Because I sure do. Granted, Troy Tulowitzki's injury didn't help. But by then, the Rockies' record was already 40-57.
I remember when the A's seemed unbeatable, too. On the morning of Aug. 10, the Athletics' record stood at 72-44, tops in the majors. Their record the rest of the way: 16-30, worst in the American League.
All I'm saying is the past isn'tnecessarily*prologue, although of course usually it is. Of the 10 teams in line for a postseason spot at the All-Star break last summer, seven eventually made it (exceptions: Seattle, Milwaukee, Atlanta).
But the Royals are 6-0 in this young season. The Tigers, too. Yes, it's only six games. Do you know how rarely teams open their season with six straight wins? Unless I missed someone, just one team has done that in the past 10 years: the 2011 Rangers, who won their first six, lost their seventh, and ultimately won 96 games and lost the World Series by thenarrowest of margins.
Granted, that's just one team and one season. Not a season without hiccoughs, either. The Rangers just sort of muddled along for a few months, and in early July were only three games over .500. But they dashed off a 12-game winning streak, then six-game streaks in August and September (to finish the regular season).
Yes, the Rangers were*particularlystreaky. And it's certainly not the case that*bad*teams won't put together winning streaks. Last year, six teams lost at least 90 games ... but four ofthem*did post winning streaks of six games. In fact, three of*those*teams racked up seven-game winning streaks.
Ah, but that was it. Those three seven-game streaks, and one six-game streak. Meanwhile, the Twins' longest streak was four games; the Diamondbacks', only*three. If there's a message here, it's probably that*badteams don't win six straight.
Wait, didn't I just say that four bad teams did that just last year?
Why, yes. But here's the key difference: The Royals and the Tigers have done it*already. Which means they've got nearly six months to run off more streaks. And they probably will, since neither team was in the "bad"� bucket before the season began.
I should also mention what the message here is not: It's not that the Royals or the Tigers are going be great. Yes, the 2011 Rangers were pretty tremendous but one team in one season just doesn't tell us much. I guess I could go back*another*10 years, but even th- oh, okay. Beats real work.
In 2003, the Giants opened the season 7-0, and the ROYALS opened with NINE STRAIGHT WINS. Yes, the Royals. Now it's all coming back to me. The Royals finished that season seven games out of first place; the Giants won 100 games.
In 2002, the Giants started 6-0 and finished the season with 95 wins.
In 1998, the Indians started 6-0 and finished with 89 wins, good enough for first place in a lousy division.
In 1996, the Rangers started 7-0 and finished with 90 wins, good enough for first place.
That's it. In the 20 seasons before this one, only six teams opened their seasons with six straight victories. Which seems like a ridiculously small number and*maybe*I missed somebody, but I don't think so. And of those six teams, five wound up in the playoffs. Now, it's*probably*true that most or all of these teams were better on Opening Day -- on paper, I mean -- than the Royals were this season.
It's*certainly*true that the Royals can't keep hitting the way they've been hitting, with seven or eight of the regulars outperforming their projections. But then, you knew that already, just as you knew the Royals won't go 162-0 this season.
What we don't know is how many Royals*will*outperform their projections this season. Might be one, might be five or six. You don't want to bet against projections because you'll lose your money. But of course they're not always right. Maybe Mike Moustakas really*did*find himself last season, and*Ned Yost's optimism*is well-founded. Jon Paul Morosi watched the Royals sweep the Angels, and says*Kendrys Morales has never before moved around this well.
There are things we just don't know until they've actually happened. The Royals finished ninth in the American League in scoring last year, and I certainly didn't expect them to fare much better this year. Still don't.
But it wouldn't be the first time we whiffed on one of these things.