Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Rockies are still hanging on to first in the NL West by a half game over Arizona. However, Colorado's good fortune has been based on a surprisingly good performance from their pitching staff even though the offense has been less robust than most seasons. That pitching performance was probably a fluke. For April they have a team ERA of 4.74, but for the last seven days it has been 6.63.
Colorado has the best record in MLB in one run games, 8-0. The consequence of that is that while their expected record would be 12-14, their actual record is 16-10.
In the Al the Orioles are 6-1 in one run games and beating their expected win total by three games. The Yankees have outscored their opposition by 43 runs, Baltimore by one run.
The Rangers appear to have lost their one run game "skill" . They are two games under their expected record while going 2-5 in one run games.
MLB catchers have a collective 87 wRC+ this season.
So, a 93 would seem to be well above respectable.
The general point was that KC has been five kinds of god awful with the bats so far this season. Do you think that they deserve a better grade than that?
The general point was that KC has been five kinds of god awful with the bats so far this season. Do you think that they deserve a better grade than that?
No, not at all.
The Royals' cumulative 65 wRC+ is last in the majors by a good margin (2.4 standard deviations below the mean (so, maybe they've only been around two and a half kinds of awful)).
But, the catchers, who have been above average offensively (for their position) aren't the problem. They've been quite respectable. Which is exactly the comment that I made.
They are 5 % above average for the position, so lets not confuse them with the solution.
So, the "The Royals' catchers are/aren't hitting respectably" goalposts are no longer the ones being shot at?
Just as well, that goal has been scored.
Which new goalposts exactly, then?
What problem are they not the solution to?
The Royals' anemic offense? I certainly disagree. If the Royals were performing as well at every position as the catchers are this would be an above average hitting team. Only 7 out of 30 teams (pitchers excluded) had a collective 105 wRC+ last season.
Also, I'm not sure if I looked at the wrong numbers or what, but Royals catchers currently (Sal Perez is five for his last 8 trips to the plate with 3 doubles and a homer for about a 473 wRC+) have a 107 wRC+, the 7th best figure in the majors.
So, the "The Royals' catchers are/aren't hitting respectably" goalposts are no longer the ones being shot at?
Just as well, that goal has been scored.
Which new goalposts exactly, then?
What problem are they not the solution to?
The Royals' anemic offense? I certainly disagree. If the Royals were performing as well at every position as the catchers are this would be an above average hitting team. Only 7 out of 30 teams (pitchers excluded) had a collective 105 wRC+ last season.
Also, I'm not sure if I looked at the wrong numbers or what, but Royals catchers currently (Sal Perez is five for his last 8 trips to the plate with 3 doubles and a homer for about a 473 wRC+) have a 107 wRC+, the 7th best figure in the majors.
You misunderstood. They are not the solution because they aren't the problem. The solution would involve improving the offense at the other positions.
Apart from that, you have been correct about their catching not truly falling under the classification of non respectable. I should have phrased it differently. I suppose I looked at their catcher's .258 OBA and concluded that it did not represent what you want from a batter, without placing it in a context relative to all AL catchers in 2017.
If that satisfies you, do you have any insights about the Royals general offensive ineptitude?
You misunderstood. They are not the solution because they aren't the problem. The solution would involve improving the offense at the other positions.
Apart from that, you have been correct about their catching not truly falling under the classification of non respectable. I should have phrased it differently. I suppose I looked at their catcher's .258 OBA and concluded that it did not represent what you want from a batter, without placing it in a context relative to all AL catchers in 2017.
Quote:
If that satisfies you, do you have any insights about the Royals general offensive ineptitude?
Other than they aren't a very good group of hitters, no.
It hasn't been injuries that have taken key players out of the lineup.
C Perez
1B Hosmer
3B Moustakas
SS Escobar
LF Gordon
CF Cain
DH Moss
Have all been playing
2B was a question mark
and RF was to be former Cub Jose Soler who's been injured.
Probably just random variation. Guys have bad months all of the time. It's just harder to mask when it's at the beginning of the season and when it's two thirds of the team.
It certainly could be something systemic. Something coached into them or some other environmental cause. But, I'm certainly not close enough to the situation to know that.
So, I'll go with: poor hitters playing even more poorly than expected for a stretch. With some, possibly, compounding factors (pressing, etc) on top of that.
Probably just random variation. Guys have bad months all of the time. It's just harder to mask when it's at the beginning of the season and when it's two thirds of the team.
.
Probably so. However, I'm a fan of extremes....in that it is more fun to follow a historically bad team (like the '79 A's) than to follow a mediocre one. If the team isn't going to be competitive, I'd rather it win 40 games than 55 or 60. My favorite Yankee team was the 1968 version which batted .214 (and at that they still were not the worst offense in baseball that year..but think what attending the games was like for the fans when your whole team is only batting .214.)
So I'm hoping that April is not an anomaly for the Royals, I'm hoping that they are that bad all year.
Probably so. However, I'm a fan of extremes....in that it is more fun to follow a historically bad team (like the '79 A's) than to follow a mediocre one. If the team isn't going to be competitive, I'd rather it win 40 games than 55 or 60. My favorite Yankee team was the 1968 version which batted .214 (and at that they still were not the worst offense in baseball that year..but think what attending the games was like for the fans when your whole team is only batting .214.)
So I'm hoping that April is not an anomaly for the Royals, I'm hoping that they are that bad all year.
Unfortunately, for you - less so for the majority of Royals fans, they almost certainly won't be this bad all year.
Now, there is one thing, though, I can’t just let go by. How have the Royals scored so few of their baserunners? With the bases empty, they’re 25th in wRC+, at 78. But with runners in scoring position, they’re in last, with a wRC+ of — wait for it — 16. 16! That’s the third-worst month since 2002
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
