Royals compared to the 2002 WS champs

[Streetkid]

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/2015-kansas-city-royals-similar-to-2002-world-series-champ-anaheim-angels-103015

Thoughts?

[tomsred]

Wow, pretty interesting.  Very similar construction.

[Guest]

That was an interesting article (though I don't necessarily agree), thanks for posting it.

[Docwaukee]

I've been thinking this all year.  It's a fair comp relative to the era.  But the offense from the 2002 team was insane and just a pure juggernaut in the playoffs.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

I was just thinking about this recently. Havent read the link yet, but i think the bullpens are similar. And the offenses are vzery close IMO. Both teams are more about spraying the ball and being aggressive on the bases. Neither has/had some standout, mvp type player. If not for fan voting, like the 02 team, the royals arent "as good" offensively as other teams in the league with more power.

Both teams were mostly home grown too.

What else?

Oh yeah..hud and phys....

[Angelsjunky]

Here's the big difference: the Royals aren't a one-year wonder. The 2002 Angels were. Yes, there were glimmers of potentially for a couple years previously, and some of those players went on to be a part of the 2004-09 era. But the 2002 was catching lightning in a bottle. The Royals are a legit perennial contender - remember, this is their second World Series in a row.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Here's the big difference: the Royals aren't a one-year wonder. The 2002 Angels were. Yes, there were glimmers of potentially for a couple years previously, and some of those players went on to be a part of the 2004-09 era. But the 2002 was catching lightning in a bottle. The Royals are a legit perennial contender - remember, this is their second World Series in a row.

 

The Angels core was older, and perhaps unsurprisingly broke down in 2003.

[Lou]

You know its a small minority of Angel fans who actually know how that team was built. We were loaded with bullpen arms, high contact hitters, power bats, defense, and speed. A lot of starting pitchers look good when they only go 5-6 innings even night.

 

But no the majority wanted to trade for a big bat like Vernon Wells, sign Pujols, sign CJ, sign Hamilton. No appreciation for good old fashion deep pitching, sound defense, and team speed.

2002 Angels SP averaged 6.2 inn/start

2015 Royals averaged 5.6

[ten ocho recon scout]

Here's the big difference: the Royals aren't a one-year wonder. The 2002 Angels were. Yes, there were glimmers of potentially for a couple years previously, and some of those players went on to be a part of the 2004-09 era. But the 2002 was catching lightning in a bottle. The Royals are a legit perennial contender - remember, this is their second World Series in a row.

true...but in 2003 we lost glaus, erstad and fullmer for half the year. I think people forget that. Something like that is going to effect any team (except the cards)

And from a competition standpoint, the AL was much stronger in the 2000s vs today. Lets say toronto is rhe yankees of that decade (with the star power of their lineup, decent front end starter or 2, mediocre backend), whos the boston of today? Whos the oakland of today? Seattle finished 3rd in 02 with the same record the mets are on the world series with.

I just think todays good teams are at an advantage vs teams back then. Back then you had ny/bos, then relative parity. Hardly anyone signed long term deals, and with steroids guys left for new teams maybe 3 times in 10 years as free agents. It was tougher to build anything long term because offense was god, steroids made the market a lot bigger, and guys signed shorter deals so they could get better contracts every few years.

So im not totally disagreeing with you AJ. I just think its two different eras.

[Blarg]

You know its a small minority of Angel fans who actually know how that team was built. We were loaded with bullpen arms, high contact hitters, power bats, defense, and speed. A lot of starting pitchers look good when they only go 5-6 innings even night.

But no the majority wanted to trade for a big bat like Vernon Wells, sign Pujols, sign CJ, sign Hamilton. No appreciation for good old fashion deep pitching, sound defense, and team speed.

Colt do you realize that by the time the Angels made the Wells trade the Angels had no one left remaining from that 2002 team? Time doesn't stand still, teams turn over and players age out and the league changes as well.

[Blarg]

Here's the big difference: the Royals aren't a one-year wonder. The 2002 Angels were. Yes, there were glimmers of potentially for a couple years previously, and some of those players went on to be a part of the 2004-09 era. But the 2002 was catching lightning in a bottle. The Royals are a legit perennial contender - remember, this is their second World Series in a row.

Do you remember all of the quality players Disney picked up to shore up the rotation and bench in 2003?

Yeah, neither does anyone else because they basicly let the team tank because they were selling and didn't want to increase payroll, the few dollars they would have to pay before selling the franchise.

The Royals improved on their World Series team of last season, that is why you can say they are built to last instead of a one year wonder. The Angels could have been that team but Disney ****ed them.

Edited October 31, 2015 by notti

[Troll Daddy]

Mickey ball ... before you start your troll bullshit, think about it.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Mickey ball ... before you start your troll bullshit, think about it.

not gonna lie...thats funny

[Angelsjunky]

Good points ocho and notti. I investigated it a bit further and the two teams do have a lot of similarites. Actually, the Royals don't have quite as an impressive core as I thought they did. They aren't like the Cubs with their hitters or the Mets with their pitchers. They're just balanced and with a lot of strong competitors, but few standout stars...similar to the 2002 Angels. In a way it is surprising that they're back in the WS, although as ocho said this likely speaks to the lack of any powerhouse teams in the AL right now.

[Inside Pitch]

So im not totally disagreeing with you AJ. I just think its two different eras.

 

Different eras -- but the style of play still works.   The whole power, wait for a bomb, and don't worry about Ks game is really rather dull.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Thats pretty much it AJ, the royals are just super solid. No real standout guy (i guess cueto). But their offense has a lot more tim salmons than mike trouts. Meaning, very solid players, but not head and shoulders above the rest guys. I love lorenzo cain, and sal perez. But neither are total badasses.

But like you said, they have no flaws. And i think the main similarities between the two teams is that neither is going to outslug anyone, but they specialize in spraying the ball to the gaps, and manufacturing

Its tempting to look at them and say thats the way to build, but maybe theyre more an anomaly too? Not sure. We coule probably identify 100s of teams over the last 2 decades who were "better" than the royals on paper in terms of star power and stats, and those teams may have never gotten past round 1

[FabulousFabregas]

The 2002 team wasn't a fluke.  2003 just had tons of injuries, but the 2004 AL West Champions team still had most of the key members of the 2002 team.  2005 also still had Anderson, Washburn, Erstad, Lackey, K-Rod, Shields, Bengie Molina, Adam Kennedy, Brendan Donnelly, and Jose Molina.

[Season Over]

Remember how loaded the AL West was in 2002?  The Angels and A's were both fantastic, the last place Rangers got an MVP season from A-Rod, and most of that 2001 Mariners team was still around.  

[nate]

Seems to me that the Angels had a better pen and the Royals have better starting pitching.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Remember how loaded the AL West was in 2002? The Angels and A's were both fantastic, the last place Rangers got an MVP season from A-Rod, and most of that 2001 Mariners team was still around.

the mariners were very good. The rangers lacked pitching, but featured a moto of pudge, arod, juan gon and palmeiro...thats insane

The As are remembered for moneyball, and how they built an offense of giambi, tejada, chavez, dye etc. And thats all true. But it was their pitching rhat was insane. Most teams back then didnt have an ace, they had 3. Lilly was a very good 4

Boston and new york just happened to have the money to outbuild everyone.

The NL back then was an afterthought really. Some good teams, some good players, but nothing too crazy. Its flipped now though. Theres not really a dominant AL team. KC looks to be it, toronto has the offense. Houston will be great, texas could be scary etc. But the NL has the dogs, a suddenly badass cubs team, the giants will be back...and the cards. The cards are the boston/ny of yesterday. Maybe not as scary in names, but every NL team knows to have a shot, you have to be built better than the cards (and dodgers).

[ten ocho recon scout]

Our 2004 team should have been insane. Without looking anything up, i can off the top of my head say:

Eck, erstad, vlad, GA, glaus, guillen, salmon, bengie, AK....salmon batting 7th...guillen batting 6th...we finally built a team to match anyone.

And within a month, we saw a gimped GA (averaged like 158 games a year for close to a decade, then down to like 120), glaus misses 3 months, salmon has to have season ending surgery, etc. Now guillen is batting 4th.

What could have been...

I remember the opening week we played Seattle. I remember watching vladdy and glaus just take turns hitting 2 and 3 run shots every other inning and thinking how fun the yesr was gonna be.

By 2005 we had steve finley batting 5th...

[AngelsLakersFan]

the mariners were very good. The rangers lacked pitching, but featured a moto of pudge, arod, juan gon and palmeiro...thats insane

The As are remembered for moneyball, and how they built an offense of giambi, tejada, chavez, dye etc. And thats all true. But it was their pitching rhat was insane. Most teams back then didnt have an ace, they had 3. Lilly was a very good 4

Boston and new york just happened to have the money to outbuild everyone.

The NL back then was an afterthought really. Some good teams, some good players, but nothing too crazy. Its flipped now though. Theres not really a dominant AL team. KC looks to be it, toronto has the offense. Houston will be great, texas could be scary etc. But the NL has the dogs, a suddenly badass cubs team, the giants will be back...and the cards. The cards are the boston/ny of yesterday. Maybe not as scary in names, but every NL team knows to have a shot, you have to be built better than the cards (and dodgers).

 

The AL is still significantly better than the NL though.

[ten ocho recon scout]

You think so? I dont know man, i see the NL central and see a powerhouse division between the cards, pirates and cubs. The dodgers (even though i hate them) and giants are better than houston and us/texas. The mets obviously have arrived, and i see miami being able to turn the corner very quickly with some money

[ScottT]

I'm 2028, Royals fans will want Hosmer to manage the club and Moustakas to be the bench coach.