Royals Review

tiquanunderwear - February 8, 2012 reply

But But But But But

The ERA

Dave Cameron's just a puppet.

This goes all the way to the top. Bill James? Tom Tango? I don’t know. But hide yo kids.

hug your wives a little longer tonight men

this might be goodbye

Freneau - February 8, 2012 reply

Why Do the Saber-Terrorists Hate Us, Mommy?

Why don’ t you ask her when you grab another pop tart? She’s right upstairs.

RoyalsRetro - February 8, 2012 reply

I'm not a fan of the Chen contract

and wanted the Royals to collect the pick, but I don’t really get Cameron’s reasoning “his low ERA was essentially just about preventing hits with men on base”. Setting aside the redundancy of that statement for a second, Chen’s BAA with runners on was .285 in 2011, compared to .274 for his career. His strand rate was 75% vs 74% for his career. Chen’s low ERA was a product of his extremely low HR/FB ratio.

ElChupanibre - February 8, 2012 reply

Im not a fan of the contract either. but the statement about low era really bothers me.

“….preventing hits with runners on”

1. isnt that what a pitcher is supposed to do? so when a pitcher does his job (i.e. prevents the other team from scoring), he is somehow terrible and should be downgraded for it?

2. i know Chen has been historically terrible, but last year he won 12 games. which is again what a pitcher is supposed to do (win games that is).

again i think DM overpaid on Chens contract by about $3 million, but sayin a pitcher who did his job (win games) is terrible because of the way he accomplished it is just a plain bad way to make an argument. now if he wanted to state an opinion about Chens performance in the future, maybe “the method” by which Chen posted a good ERA is worth discussing. however in this statement his is in no way stating such an opinion. he is only saying Chen is bad because he doesn’t like the way he did his job (win games).

You're misunderstanding Cameron.

Although his analysis may be flawed because Chen’s career numbers for strand rate are similar, the logic in the argument is sound. Strand rates can vary widely from league average for 1 season, and just because a pitcher has a high strand rate one year does not mean it will continue. This is why a high strand rate can lower ERA and not provide an accurate depiction of that pitcher’s effectiveness.

Also, please don’t talk about pitcher wins. Chen did his job as a fifth starter, but is not a good pitcher in general. Doing his job is not racking up wins, it’s keeping runs from scoring, no matter how many runs the Royals score when he pitches.

Right

I bet you think Tebow is a bad quarterback, too!

OnixConcepcion - February 8, 2012 reply

I wish people would just analyze Tebow the player

Seemingly everyone has an opinion of him the person that skews their opinions of his football-playing prowess (or lack thereof).

I analyze the player not the person

and see Tebow as an H-Back out of position at QB because he is an inaccurate passer with poor form who will slowly become more and more exposed at the position without making great developmental leaps. Teams with big, fast linebackers and a decent secondary will cause him some pretty massive headaches as he goes forward.

Agree with this assessment

Unless Denver can maintain an absolutely hellacious running attack to keep 8-9 guys up towards the line, then Tebow will never be enough at QB.

I'm somewhere in between the 2 arguments...

what if he DOES get better? I mean from his first start to the MInnesota game to the Steelers game was leaps and bounds…why wouldn’t he continue that?

PhattStairs - February 8, 2012 reply

Anybody can show flashes

Consistency is what separates. I think he’ll never have the consistency.

There are lots of passers with poor form who do alright

Tebow showed arm strength and an incredible ability to improvise, both of which are important qualities to have.

His worth ethic is fantastic, so I wouldn’t count out improvement just yet. However, if he can’t show that he can cope with being a starting QB next year, he never will be. I think a career trajectory may be more like Rex Grossman—somehow getting by on awesome games every once in a while but generally being crap.

i agree Chen is not that great of a pitcher. However my problem was with Camerons statement. As you say, “Chen did his job” → i.e. preventing the other team from scoring.

Cameron however appears to be stating this is a bad thing in Bruces case. I say the guy did his job and deserves some credit. does he deserve 2yrs/$9 million worth of credit? absolutely not! IMO he deserved 1 yr/$3million with an option year worth of credit.

Chen did his job the last two years,

but that doesn’t mean that he’s likely to continue doing so. Luck certainly seems to have been firmly in his favor, which is what Cameron is getting at, and there’s not a lot of reason to believe this can continue, unless you actually believe that Bruce induces such poor contact as to have control over his BABIP, which I have a hard time believing.

I guess I failed to explain it.

Good observations about Chen's career numbers.

But, as you probably know, his extremely low HR/FB ratio just replaces Cameron’s argument about Chen’s low ERA. Either way, Chen’s ERA is probably going to go up.

No doubt

I just found it a bit lazy (and incorrect) of Cameron in his analysis. At least come up with valid reasoning if you are going to the trouble of making such a list. He didn’t even mention the potential comp pick loss.

While I don’t like Chen’s 2nd year, I find the Yuni signing much more egregious.

ElChupanibre - February 8, 2012 reply

There are lots of good reasons to think of Chen as an easily replaceable #5 SP

who is no better than some pitchers who got minor league deals.

Scott McKinney - February 8, 2012 reply

Klaassen, Jeff, or somebody else can correct me

but I am not sure there is any real research showing that LOB% itself is a skill — there are other skills that lead can lead to a pitcher having a LOB% above or below the norm (e.g., Roy Halladay has a great LOB% because he gets a ton of groundballs, never walks anyone, and still gets strikeouts), but nothing that I am aware of shows that LOB% is a stand alone skill. An averager starters typically would have a LOB% around 70-71%.

Plus, if you look at Chen’s performance with men on base or men in scoring position, he did better last year than his career numbers with no real obvious explanation for it (other than the aforementioned dip in HR/FB, although his K and BB rates were worse last year). His BABIP with men on base was basically the same as his career (302 vs 304), but his strand rate was a fair bit better (41.2% in 2011 vs 35.5% career). With men in scoring position, his BABIP was a good bit better (277 in 2011 vs 290 career) and his strand rate was better too (6.3% in 2011 vs 1.1% career).

Citing the lower HR/FB would have provided a better and more complete explanation, but questioning Chen’s ERA based on the prevention of hits with men on base is not really out of line.

Gopherballs - February 8, 2012 reply

And he misses perhaps the two biggest problems with the signing

They could have netted a comp pick or gotten him for just one year via arbitration.

i dont know that you can qualify it as two problems when its an impossibility of both of those things happening

that is another problem

buddyball - February 8, 2012 reply

I think OMD intended the 2 "problems" to mean

the two alternatives that were both better than offering Chen a two-year deal. The fact that Dayton couldn’t see that each alternative was better than the one he chose leads to the identification of two problems: (1) Dayton doesn’t think a comp pick is very valuable, and (2) Dayton thought he needed to offer Chen a two-year deal to avoid (GASP!) losing him.

They are two problems in an either/or scenario.

1a and 1b is probably how I should have phrased it, but I didn’t. Now I get to clarify when I was hoping it would be read as I was thinking.

Only #9

We usually have signings much higher on these lists

Improvement

Jeff Zimmerman - February 8, 2012 reply

Just wait til next winter!

Jeremy Guthrie 4/$40 million!

RoyalsRetro - February 8, 2012 reply

Progress!

Clearly Dayton is learning and improving.

Scott McKinney - February 8, 2012 reply

Of all things, this isn't the worst part about re-signing Chen

his low ERA was essentially just about preventing hits with men on base.

Tito42 - February 8, 2012 reply

No real signs of improvement?

Over the past 2 seasons, his HR/9 has been 1.09 and 1.05 with a HR/FB of 8.1%. Clearly, this is home run suppression of Kauffman Stadium.

Those numbers are way down compared to his 2009 HR/9 of 1.73 and a HR/FB of 11.7% he had playing in…(looks back)…Kauf————oh damn, damn, damn.

dejezeus - February 8, 2012 reply

Better than the ~15% HR/FB he had prior to pitching in the K.

kcdc1 - February 8, 2012 reply

I'm pretty sure I was among the most negative RR members on the Chen extension

But Cameron’s taking the wrong angle here. Chen has shown a repeatable skill to limit hits on balls in play. Because of this, he’s better than a generic #5.

The reason the contract is bad is because it makes no sense given the team’s position. The Royals had young guys they could try out at the bottom of the rotation. If they wanted to make a move on a FA, it had to be somebody that would be a significant upgrade over Duffy or Crow or Monty etc.

kcdc1 - February 8, 2012 reply

And another thing

How can he be a generic #5 when he’s Bruce Chen?

Does not compute.

NotAHippie - February 8, 2012 reply

+1

I’m glad this has been recognized as a truly bad move. The magnitude of the years, money and prospects involved may be smaller than the very worst moves on the list, but if payroll is and will continue to be well below average, the cost of a bad move is magnified. Giving up the pick and doubling down with a second year was unwise and unnecessary. I agree that Chen has pitched better than a fifth starter, but he also hasn’t been able to put up the IP a team like the Royals should be looking for from a veteran SP.

Would I rather have Derek Lowe for $5mil and a meh prospect, or Jeff Francis on a minor league deal? AND a comp pick? Hell yes. The Royals have to be smarter than this.

thelaundry - February 8, 2012 reply

Chen has shown a repeatable skill to limit hits on balls in play

It’s still an open question whether Chen is one of the few pitchers who can reliably limit balls in play, and if so, to what degree.

Scott McKinney - February 8, 2012 reply

open meaning its an idea that has some statistical backing and cant be dismissed.

of course it cant be shown to be a statistically significant factor (yet) either.

pretty sure it can

kcdc1 - February 9, 2012 reply

er, can be shown to be a statistically significant factor

kcdc1 - February 9, 2012 reply

I guess we'll find out this year, huh?

If he can, yet again, post a sub-4 ERA the evidence gets pretty strong.

At which point, he'll be a year older

And then it REALLY gets difficult for him.

True

But then it’s regression due to age and not regression due to an ERA/FIP differential.

I thought fly ball pitchers tend to have lower BABIPs

averagegatsby - February 8, 2012 reply

Bruce Chen:

1164.2 career IP
.279 BABIP

kcdc1 - February 8, 2012 reply

I don't think it's an open question.

I think he can because of his ability to locate and change speed. But it’s not limiting balls in play, it’s limiting hard contact. I know you meant that, and I disagree with the notion that there are few pitchers who can limit hard contact. I think there are a decent amount, mostly soft-tossers and not very good overall.

++1

best analysis of Chen contract ive heard to date.

I thought the Royals shouldn't have signed anyone (including Chen)

The Sanchez trade made sense because they should have gotten rid of Cabrera anyway. But if you don’t sign Chen, you have

Duffy
Monty
Crow
Teaford
Mendoza

for two spots. Now, I know some of you will laugh at me for putting Mendoza as a possibility, but hear me out. The Royals success in 2012 depends on the success of their young budding stars. This is true with or without any FA signings. Now, I understand the desire to sign starting pitching because a chunk of the rotation as it stands above is all potential and no proven abilities. But if you sign a SP, make sure it’s a good one, one who is a clear upgrade over the other possibilities.

Bruce Chen is neither an upgrade nor does he allow the young starters as much playing time. The last two spots being Crow and Monty would not be likely very good to begin with, but it would sure speed up their development and assist the Royals long-term.

And then there’s that second year, in which Chen begins to block Odorizzi, Dwyer, Arguelles, Lamb, and possibly others. So those jokes at the K better be damn good.

Official Arrowhead Pride Parade - February 8, 2012 reply

Oh C'MON!!!

You have to pay players when they perform..

In Chen you now have 295 IP the last seasons of sub 4.00 ERA. You can argue its fluky, and you can argue that its not sustainable but the guy more than did his job. You can XFIP it out but the simple fact is the guy has had a lower aggregate ERA than Greinke the last two seasons. Do I believe that Chen will post a sub 4.00 ERA this year? No. Do I believe that Chen could have gotten more than a 1 yr 4 mill deal on the market? No. Do I believe that its in the best interests of a franchise that hasn’t won shit in 27 years to actually pay the only starting pitcher who has exceeded expectations a fair salary to at least establish that performance will be rewarded in an organization that spent a decade trading away talent as soon as it got valuable for spare parts? Yes, just like the Franceour contract, establishing that performance(Chen has 2.9 WAR over the last two seasons worth 14 million dollars according to F-graphs) will earn you a decent amount of money. For heaven’s sakes Yoenis Cespedes is gonna get 35 million dollars to be Emil Brown; and we are whining about a 2 yr 9 million dollar deal that doesn’t affect any of Hosmer/Moustakas/Duffys/Myers big money years?

dyehardfan - February 8, 2012 reply

I think one of the worst things you can do

is pay people based on past performance rather than expected future performance.

PopeSoria - February 8, 2012 reply

Paying for past performance may be somewhat acceptable in the NFL's salary structure

But in MLB, with guaranteed contracts, it’s absolutely the last thing you should do.

As multiple people have said above (including me)

Most of the grief with this deal is that he is blocking other players with his presence. I don’t have a problem with the money amount myself, but others might differ.

who's he blocking now?

mendoza? talk to me when he’s actually blocking someone who is ready

Even if he isn't blocking anyone at this moment

During the duration of his two year deal, his presence will likely (hopefully) cause a headache. There are a lot of reasons to be annoyed by bringing Chen back, him blocking somebody doesn’t top my list.

and there's a good chance we'll see a major injury or horrible underperformance...

im not a fan of the contract, but im not going to get all fired up about him blocking someone until ya know, he’s actually blocking someone. same thing with frenchy/myers

It doesn't really concern me.

Injuries to the pitchers are likely, you’ve got to have a bunch of them in supply. My main issue is having a 34 year old pitcher with limited upside taking one of the spots.

but everyone wanted roy oswalt?

Meh

I would’ve like Rich Harden. Might as well try to catch lightning in a bottle with him staying healthy for a stretch. Bruce Chen adds nothing to the future of this team, his presence is redundant.

mitchfreakingmaier! - February 9, 2012 reply

I think I just saw that Harden was out for the year.

So he's available then?

Sounds like a great buy-low opportunity to me.

Sweep_the_Leg - February 9, 2012 reply

I don't really care about Roy Oswalt,

but you do realize you are comparing Bruce Chen to Roy Oswalt, right? I get that you’re trying to say Oswalt is a 34-year-old pitcher with limited upside, but you do realize he hasn’t had a season below 3.0 fWAR since 2004, right? Then there’s the fact that Oswalt seems to be on record only wanting a one-year deal, which is certainly preferable to a Chen who will hopefully be worth half as much as Oswalt while being on the books for two years. While I don’t really see the point of signing Oswalt this year, he and Chen are not one and the same. Not by a long shot.

Sorry, 2003 was his last sub-3.0 WAR season.

and he's got major health issues

and he’s likely to cost at least as much for 1 year as chen will for two…and chen will be around as at worst case scenario insurance next year