Comments on: Kansas City Royals 2010 Positional Review: Second Basemen

By: kcrb

kcrb — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:47:24 +0000

i agree….aviles should be shortstop, probably won’t happen though….getz needs to play 2nd base …. while his offense isn’t great, i think it will improve to an acceptable level, i will take it… his defense and speed, i think make up for it… and they need to see if he is worth keeping around, aviles probably would bring more in return in trade than most of the other options

By: Nick Scott

Nick Scott — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:40:23 +0000

sorry, they were .28 r/g below average and were the 2nd team below average.

avg = 4.45 r/g
angels = 4.2 r/g
Royals = 4.17 r/g

By: Nick Scott

Nick Scott — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:39:05 +0000

“aviles is your 2b. why do u need to “look at” getz?”

I want aviles at SS instead of 2B, and Getz is younger than aviles. So we need to find out whether Getz is worth keeping around for the future. I could see many people saying we know already, and thats fine. I think the royals will want to see more out of him and I’m ok with that.

“It kills me how these quantitative charts keep painting the Royals as an average”

so Far, I’ve only done catcher, first base and 2nd base. The royals were below average at C and above average at 1b and 2b(where two of their best offensive players sit). And these are merely offensive measures, where the Royals were actually only .3 r/g below the AL average and were the first team below the average. So they are a tad below average offensively.

The biggest problem this year was runs given up where the Royals were dead last. Partially due to poor pitching and partially due to poor defense.

By: airgoesit

airgoesit — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:01:26 +0000

It kills me how these quantitative charts keep painting the Royals as an average (and even above sometimes!) team, in some cases allowing us to justify some of these guy’s careers (stand up if your name rhymes with smile mavies or fentonsnort), and yet they were within spitting distance of 100 loses and will be drafting in the top 5. Again. Either we need to find more appropriate evaluation metrics or they are the unluckiest group of baseball players ever to grace the grasses of MLB.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:52:25 +0000

Aviles is the SS, why do we need to look at Betancourt? A player shouldn’t be able to lose their starting position due to injury, no matter how bad it is. He is finally healthy, and I think he could move back to SS. Let Betemit and Fields platoon at 3B until Moustakas is back. Let Getz and Aviles play up the middle until one or both of them player their way out of a position.

Fields, Betemit, and Gordon can platoon LF once Moustakas is up.

By: fb0252

fb0252 — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:28:27 +0000

aviles is your 2b. why do u need to “look at” getz?

By: Nick Scott

Nick Scott — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:32:28 +0000

Yeah, it’s a weird choice and I’m still just speculating. But I can’t completely disagree with the move. I’m not sure that betemit will be able to reproduce his numbers and I’m ok with the royals wanting to see more out of getz. 2011 is a year to figure out what they have in a number of players.

By: fb0252

fb0252 — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:39:20 +0000

Royals in Aviles have one of the top 2bs in the league. So, move him to third.

By: nick scott

nick scott — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:28:52 +0000

SKITTLES!

By: Sammy J

Sammy J — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:16:59 +0000

It’s “baseman”, not “basemen”, when you’re talking about one person or the name of the position. The last 4 times the word “basemen” appears in this post, it should be “baseman”. It’s “foresee”, too. Good post, though.