(New) 2013 Kansas City Royals Repository

[duncan_idaho]

New thread, this time with more burst.

Proposed 2013 Slogan: Tigers: They're what's for dinner
Actual 2013 Slogan: Come to Play
A better, more accurate, or alternative slogan: All in, no panic, we promise.

Dayton Moore has pushed all his chips in and is riding on King/Jack suited, hoping it comes together, he gets some good luck, and he hits the nuts by the river card. There's potential, oh yes, there's potential. There's also risk.

At the midway point, Dayton is left counting on the river card. The flop and turn didn't help him, and he's looking at the Tigers holding a pair of Queens and the Indians holding a pair of 9s. His 2013 plan hasn't failed - yet - but the odds are not in his favor.

Burning questions updates below.

Burning Questions for 2013:

1) Will the improve rotation be improved enough? Does James Shields pitch like a fringe No. 1 away from Tampa Bay? Does Ervin Santana pitch to his highest upside in his walk year? Can Jeremy Guthrie build on his strong performance as a Royal in 2012? Can Wade Davis bring his new mentality- and velocity - back to the rotation?

Midseason check-in: Yes, the rotation is certainly improved enough. Shields has pitched like a fringe No. 1 and Santana is having his best season. Guthrie has horrible peripherals but has continued to perform well at his home park and eat innings on the road. Davis brought neither his kick-ass mentality or improved velocity back to the rotation and is in Luke Hochevar/Hiram Davies territory.

2) When will Luke Hochevar be shown the door?
Midseason check-in: It appears, never, at this point. Hochevar has been solid in non-leverage situations, though pretty much every time he has been used with men on base in an inning, it has been a disaster.

3) Does Hosmer bounce back?
Midseason check-in: It took some time, but Hosmer's performance from June 1 on is probably the most encouraging thing about the 2013 season so far.
4) Can Moustakas hit for a whole season like he did in the first half of 2012?
Midseason check-in: Nope. Moustakas was god-awful, then great for about 3 weeks, then god-awful again. He has been better since he started working with Brett and Grafol but still has a long way to go.
5) Who regresses?
Midseason check-in: Welp, Alicides Escobar is not a surprising name here (though Yost's stubborn insistence on hitting him second is ridiculous). Billy Butler is a surprise. He isn't having a terrible year - still contributing a lot to the offense - but he's not hitting for the average or power he has displayed over the past several years.
6) Who plays 2B?
Midseason check-in: A whole bunch of people, and not that great. Gio is at least getting a shot, though he once again is not doing much with it.
7) Can Jeff Francoeur be at least replacement level, rather than epic horrible level?
Midseason check-in: Hahahahahahahahahahaha
8) Will Dayton Moore survive to see 2014?
Midseason check-in: Outlook uncertain. Probably still around, unless the team completely tanks in the second half and he does something foolish. My guess - he sacrifices Ned Yost this offseason and gets one more shot with a new manager in 2014.
9) Will Danny Duffy come back healthy? And if he does, is he the same, better or worse?
Midseason check-in: Yes. Velocity looks the same, and it looks likely he is the same guy as before.
10) And the big one: Has KC added enough to run down the big-money Detroit Tigers?
Midseason check-in: Doesn't look like it, does it?

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Well, at least we acquired a player who has absolutely abused KC pitching since his rookie year.

I had that same impression of him when I first saw the trade and looked up his career stats vs. the Royals. For some reason I thought he had clubbed a bunch of homers vs. us, but apparently only 1.

I must have gotten him confused with all the other Twinkies who have tormented us in recent years (except for 2013).

[Coach]

Originally Posted by alnorth

If Lough would have somehow beaten out Maxwell and Dyson, given that Aoki's now the man in right, he would be lucky to get half the AB in 2014 that he got in 2013. So, he may end the year with less than 1 WAR playing for us in 2014. If Moose sucks in the spring and Valencia takes his job, he could finish with over 2 WAR, while he'd struggle to get 1 as a backup in Baltimore. All things being equal, especially with our needs, I'd rather have another 3B than a corner OF.

When you compare WAR you gotta eyeball the PA and Games played, then roughly adjust for that if you are comparing a starter to a bench guy. (eg, if you played 1/3 of the season and got 0.5 WAR, then maybe you are a 1.5 WAR player)

But there is no statistical evidence or a alternative theory evidence that would say that Valencia would finish with over a 2 WAR, given a full season. The only thing close to a full season for Valencia was in 2011, where he played 154 games, which translated into a -0.3 WAR.

Lough played 96 games, which is a little more than half of a season, and he finished a 2.7 WAR.

I'm just simply stating that, in terms of value in return, to me, at this point, it doesn't seem much in return. Would have been nice to have a low prospect along with Valencia to offset the value that Lough have provided in the 2013 season, that's all.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

I had that same impression of him when I first saw the trade and looked up his career stats vs. the Royals. For some reason I thought he had clubbed a bunch of homers vs. us, but apparently only 1.

I must have gotten him confused with all the other Twinkies who have tormented us in recent years (except for 2013).

2010 left an impression, apparently. Just couldn't get him out.

[Jerm]

I suddenly feel very, very good about this team with the recent moves...GMDM has honestly surprised me.

That Valencia trade is a steal IMO.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Coach

But there is no statistical evidence or a alternative theory evidence that would say that Valencia would finish with over a 2 WAR, given a full season. The only thing close to a full season for Valencia was in 2011, where he played 154 games, which translated into a -0.3 WAR.

Lough played 96 games, which is a little more than half of a season, and he finished a 2.7 WAR.

I'm just simply stating that, in terms of value in return, to me, at this point, it doesn't seem much in return. Would have been nice to have a low prospect along with Valencia to offset the value that Lough have provided in the 2013 season, that's all.

I'm firmly of the opinion that you can't look at WAR in a vacuum for bench players.

You can't just take their WAR from a bench spot and project it out to a full season and say "They'd account for X WAR," because WAR can't account for players getting "overexposed."

Take a guy with a significant platoon split (Say he's LH). Seth Smith is a good current example. If that guy plays in a platoon and plays 100 full games a year with a 2.5 WAR, you can't just look at it and say he'd be a 4 WAR guy if he played everyday. Because he, as a bench player, is being protected from overexposure (having to face disadvantageous situations).

A guy like Lough was protected and used in matchups that fit him best. That's going to make his oWAR better. Throw in his dWAR - which is not an entirely reliable stat, because of the variation in defensive stats - and he comes out as a 3 WAR guy in limited time. But there's no guarantee he's 1) that valuable in the same role again; 2) able to provide the same value in a more significant role.

It's hard to use much statistical analysis in this case. Bench players may have more/less value than their stats indicate.

Velencia and Lough are both 4A type players who are best off of the bench. In a vacuum, Lough might be more valuable (though Valencia has RH pop, which is the most rare commodity for position players), but Valencia is a more valuable piece for the Royals in 2014.

At least on paper.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

I'm firmly of the opinion that you can't look at WAR in a vacuum for bench players.

You can't just take their WAR from a bench spot and project it out to a full season and say "They'd account for X WAR," because WAR can't account for players getting "overexposed."

Take a guy with a significant platoon split (Say he's LH). Seth Smith is a good current example. If that guy plays in a platoon and plays 100 full games a year with a 2.5 WAR, you can't just look at it and say he'd be a 4 WAR guy if he played everyday. Because he, as a bench player, is being protected from overexposure (having to face disadvantageous situations).

A guy like Lough was protected and used in matchups that fit him best. That's going to make his oWAR better. Throw in his dWAR - which is not an entirely reliable stat, because of the variation in defensive stats - and he comes out as a 3 WAR guy in limited time. But there's no guarantee he's 1) that valuable in the same role again; 2) able to provide the same value in a more significant role.

It's hard to use much statistical analysis in this case. Bench players may have more/less value than their stats indicate.

Velencia and Lough are both 4A type players who are best off of the bench. In a vacuum, Lough might be more valuable (though Valencia has RH pop, which is the most rare commodity for position players), but Valencia is a more valuable piece for the Royals in 2014.

At least on paper.

Solid take.

I can see your point of view of being overexposed, which makes sense. However, when I look at Lough's splits (between LH and RH pitching), both are nearly identical. The only thing that does make a difference is that he only faced LH pitching 65 times, compared to RH pitching 250 AB's.

LH pitching, his line was .292 BA/.314 OBP/.431 SLG/.745 OPS in only 65 AB's.
RH pitching, his line was .284 BA/.310 OBP/.408 SLG/.718 OPS in 250 AB's.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits...28/david-lough

Now I know the LH pitching size is a very small sample size, but it's not like he was clearly overmatched against LH pitching either.

Valencia's splits shows me a different story. He excels against left handed pitching, but against right handed pitching, he's been a disaster.

LH pitching, his line was .371 BA/.392 OBP/.639 SLG/1.031 OPS in 97 AB's.
RH pitching, his line was .203 BA/.250 OBP/.422 SLG/.672 OPS in 64 AB's.

And I'm not so sure if he's going to "replace" Moose because last year, he was a DH as the majority of his AB's was under DH, with a little 3rd base.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits...danny-valencia

Look, I'm not questioning the trade in terms of that the Royals have to give up an outfielder because they do have a log jam of them. I get that part and I accept that part.

The part where I thought Moore could do a little better was to get the Orioles to throw in a low level prospect.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Coach

Solid take.

I can see your point of view of being overexposed, which makes sense. However, when I look at Lough's splits (between LH and RH pitching), both are nearly identical. The only thing that does make a difference is that he only faced LH pitching 65 times, compared to RH pitching 250 AB's.

LH pitching, his line was .292 BA/.314 OBP/.431 SLG/.745 OPS in only 65 AB's.
RH pitching, his line was .284 BA/.310 OBP/.408 SLG/.718 OPS in 250 AB's.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits...28/david-lough

Now I know the LH pitching size is a very small sample size, but it's not like he was clearly overmatched against LH pitching either.

Valencia's splits shows me a different story. He excels against left handed pitching, but against right handed pitching, he's been a disaster.

LH pitching, his line was .371 BA/.392 OBP/.639 SLG/1.031 OPS in 97 AB's.
RH pitching, his line was .203 BA/.250 OBP/.422 SLG/.672 OPS in 64 AB's.

And I'm not so sure if he's going to "replace" Moose because last year, he was a DH as the majority of his AB's was under DH, with a little 3rd base.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits...danny-valencia

Look, I'm not questioning the trade in terms of that the Royals have to give up an outfielder because they do have a log jam of them. I get that part and I accept that part.

The part where I thought Moore could do a little better was to get the Orioles to throw in a low level prospect.

Yeah, you know, I should have talked about this: Overexposed is not just about hitting against same-hand pitchers (though that's the easiest, most common example). It can apply to playing more than the body can handle, or just getting too many at-bats. (Attention to a guy who gets 300 ABs in a year and is not a regular is not usually as intense as attention to an established everyday player).

Basically, my concept is that some guys can only be productive as bench guys and have diminishing returns the more they play.

I think Lough's viewed value is probably lower than we might expect. Looks like a pretty even swap of bench parts (even though they are both NICE bench parts).

[CaliforniaChief]

Depth at a position of need. We have a very solid infield now:

Hosmer, Infante, Escobar, and Moose with Bonifacio and Valencia in tow.

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by Coach

Look, I'm not questioning the trade in terms of that the Royals have to give up an outfielder because they do have a log jam of them. I get that part and I accept that part.

The part where I thought Moore could do a little better was to get the Orioles to throw in a low level prospect.

I think you're overvaluing Lough, and I doubt any GM in baseball would've given up two players for a 27-year-old 4th OF with 400 career ABs in the majors.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Coach

But there is no statistical evidence or a alternative theory evidence that would say that Valencia would finish with over a 2 WAR, given a full season. The only thing close to a full season for Valencia was in 2011, where he played 154 games, which translated into a -0.3 WAR.

Lough played 96 games, which is a little more than half of a season, and he finished a 2.7 WAR.

I'm just simply stating that, in terms of value in return, to me, at this point, it doesn't seem much in return. Would have been nice to have a low prospect along with Valencia to offset the value that Lough have provided in the 2013 season, that's all.

If you wanna talk about small sample size, Lough also doesn't have much, and could seriously regress next season.

Valencia was really good in 2013, and given average luck (horrible BABIP) he should have put up a better slash line in 2012 as well. He's a great insurance policy and could be a credible alternative to Moose, or at least the other side of a platoon. We didn't deal off a proven major leaguer, and he was the outfielder we were going to get rid of. I really think this trade was very fair for both sides.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

I think you're overvaluing Lough, and I doubt any GM in baseball would've given up two players for a 27-year-old 4th OF with 400 career ABs in the majors.

Perhaps I am overvaluing Lough a little bit, but I didn't think it wouldn't be too unreasonable to at least try to get a low level (A ball player) in return along with Valencia. Lough's value is probably the highest he has at this point in terms of statistical value.

Valencia had history of playing in the Majors, and it's pretty much a schizophrenia. Rookie year, was very nice, then bombed out. Made a nice recovery last year in limited spot duty time. Who's to say that he'll perform his rookie year or 2013 lines? He could perform in the 2011/2012 lines as well.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by alnorth

If you wanna talk about small sample size, Lough also doesn't have much, and could seriously regress next season.

Valencia was really good in 2013, and given average luck (horrible BABIP) he should have put up a better slash line in 2012 as well. He's a great insurance policy and could be a credible alternative to Moose, or at least the other side of a platoon. We didn't deal off a proven major leaguer, and he was the outfielder we were going to get rid of. I really think this trade was very fair for both sides.

Lough could regress next year, I can buy that, and you're right, he didn't have much as well.

I was just simply stating in terms of value, as my previous post mentioned, based of their careers. All I was simply stating that, it wouldn't be too much at least try to see if Moore could have gotten a PTBNL or a low A player in return.

Either way, good discussion gents. At least it could have been very much worse, I will acknowledge that.

[Sure-Oz]

Solid trade, def like getting INF depth esp 3b.

[lewdog]

Time to start hitting Missy Moustakas or you'll be taking your at bats in Omaha.

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by Coach

Perhaps I am overvaluing Lough a little bit, but I didn't think it wouldn't be too unreasonable to at least try to get a low level (A ball player) in return along with Valencia. Lough's value is probably the highest he has at this point in terms of statistical value.

Valencia had history of playing in the Majors, and it's pretty much a schizophrenia. Rookie year, was very nice, then bombed out. Made a nice recovery last year in limited spot duty time. Who's to say that he'll perform his rookie year or 2013 lines? He could perform in the 2011/2012 lines as well.

How do you know Moore didn't?