We Can’t Not Talk About the Royals
The Royals lost on Monday, 9-3. No big deal — the Royals lose a lot, plus, the opposing starter was Corey Kluber. You’re going to lose most of the time to Corey Kluber. Earlier, the Royals lost on Sunday, 1-0. Also no big deal — they’re still the Royals, plus, the opposing starter was James Paxton. You’re going to lose most of the time to James Paxton. As the calendar has flipped from June to July, the Royals have been given an impossible task, and there’s little shame in defeat. You could forgive the Royals for what they’ve most recently done.
But there’s recent-recent, and then there’s just regular-recent. “Recent” is a subjective word, absent any cutoff. As far as early July is concerned, with the Royals, there’s nothing to talk about. It’s when you fold in June that the situation starts to look embarrassing. Over the past several weeks, at the plate in particular, the Royals have been historically bad. I’m not using “historically” to get your attention. I’m using it because the Royals’ struggles have been historic.
You don’t always know where the leaderboards will take you. I don’t often spend a lot of time perusing the Royals’ team statistics. I was tipped off when I looked at the numbers over the past 30 days, for all qualified hitters. The second-worst hitter in baseball has been Salvador Perez, with a wRC+ of 14. The single-worst hitter in baseball has been Alcides Escobar, with a wRC+ of — hold on — -31. Perez and Escobar, naturally, are Kansas City teammates. One thing led to another, and, well, here is a plot of every team’s wRC+ since the beginning of June:
Credit to the Dodgers: It’s not just the Max Muncy show. The Astros are back to being a beast. It’s fun to see the Reds in third place here, as their season has somewhat turned itself around. But we all know why we’re looking at this. The Royals are in last, having managed a team wRC+ of 48. To be more precise, 47.6. The nearest team is the Tigers, with a wRC+ of 72. Over this span, the Royals are the only team to have batted under .200. They’re the only team with an OBP under .250, and they’re the only team with a slugging percentage under .300, and so they’re the only team with an OPS under .550. The Royals have been caught in an offensive tailspin, and the only thing that’s allowed them to avoid too much attention is the fact they were expected to be bad in the first place. Once the expectation is there, people don’t care so much about the degree.
The Royals’ last outburst, if you will, came in a 9-6 loss to the Angels on June 4. They scored those six runs, and they managed twice as many hits. Then they went 19 consecutive games without ever scoring more than four runs, which has been the longest streak of the season. The Royals also have an active 24-game streak of not scoring more than five runs, which is the longest streak of the season. And to top it off, the Royals have an active 24-game streak of not producing more than nine hits, which is the longest streak of the season. The second-longest such streak has gone 15 games. At the plate, the Royals just haven’t been able to get a single thing going.
When you don’t hit, you don’t score. That much should be obvious. So, since the beginning of June, the Royals have scored all of 61 runs. The next-lowest total for anyone is 92. There are three teams that have outscored the Royals by at least a hundred runs. Not all year. Over just more than one month. The Royals’ pitching hasn’t been especially bad of late, but it’s not at all a team strength. The Royals don’t have very many good pitchers. Therefore, since the beginning of June, the Royals have gone a baseball-worst 5-23. If you can believe it, their actual winning percentage is slightly higher than their Pythagorean estimate. Over this span, the Royals’ Pythagorean winning percentage is .168. No one else is below .349. It’s come apart, is the point. The Royals have somehow stuck with the Orioles at the bottom of the league.
On May 1, 2017, I wrote a post titled “The Worst Offensive Month in Royals Team History.” These days, it feels almost quaint. Back then, I was writing about the Royals’ April, in which they posted a team 58 wRC+. In just this most recent June — therefore excepting the most recent two losses to Paxton and Kluber — the Royals posted a team 50 wRC+. It’s a new worst offensive month in team history, in other words. And we can stretch this out, using the Baseball Reference Play Index. The stat of choice, for me, is sOPS+ — a number that compares a given player or team split to the league average. Here are the worst calendar months in known baseball history, given a minimum of 15 games played:
| Team | Month | Year | Games | sOPS+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tigers | March/April | 2003 | 24 | 38 |
| Padres | June | 2014 | 27 | 42 |
| Expos | March/April | 2004 | 24 | 45 |
| Orioles | June | 1955 | 26 | 45 |
| Rangers | Sept/Oct | 1972 | 29 | 46 |
| Braves | Sept/Oct | 1924 | 27 | 49 |
| White Sox | March/April | 1942 | 15 | 52 |
| Orioles | March/April | 1976 | 15 | 52 |
| Dodgers | June | 1911 | 25 | 54 |
| Colt .45’s | June | 1963 | 29 | 54 |
| Royals | June | 2018 | 26 | 55 |
| Tigers | Sept/Oct | 2002 | 26 | 55 |
| Dodgers | June | 1936 | 25 | 56 |
| Browns | Sept/Oct | 1910 | 36 | 56 |
| Mets | Sept/Oct | 2003 | 26 | 57 |
The Royals show up 11th-worst. Maybe you’d prefer to see them in the top ten, but, remember just how many teams, and just how many months, there have been. It’s not the very worst month ever; the Royals have nothing on April 2003’s Tigers. They have nothing on June 2014’s Padres, or April 2004’s Expos. The Royals have so far avoided that kind of history. But being among the worst isn’t much better than being the actual worst, and so none of this should be good news. Perhaps the only consolation is that, realistically, the Royals couldn’t sink any lower.
I guess there’s further consolation. For some of June, Jorge Soler was hurt. For some of June, Lucas Duda was hurt. For some of June, Jorge Bonifacio was inactive, and, during the month of June, Jon Jay was traded. And the overarching consolation is that, in a way, this doesn’t matter. The Royals were never going to be competitive, and they presumably knew that. It’s a year of transition, with priorities somewhere other than the standings. The Royals will eventually develop into something, and June of 2018 will be forgotten, just as June of 2014 is forgotten by the Padres. All we’re talking about here are numbers. The Royals might not care much about the numbers.
But if you’re a fan, and if you’ve continued paying attention, know that your feelings are validated. Watching the Royals these past few weeks, you’ve probably thought to yourself that this has looked like one of the worst teams in memory. Your instincts have been rather accurate. Here’s to a better July, from this point forward. I don’t know how it could ever get worse.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

And maybe you could say the Royals really shouldn’t be this bad, on a talent level basis, but remember, the Royals front office thought they’d be ~25 wins better over the full season than they are on pace for.
Alcides Escobar is such a bad hitter, I can scarcely believe it. His wRC+ sits at 37, and at 319 PAs we’re not really in SSS territory anymore.
Here are the list of players with at least 400 PAs and a wRC+ lower than 37 since 1990:
Cristian Guzman (1999, Twins)
Alex Gonzalez (2000, Marlins)
There are three players worse than him this year, though I doubt any of them will stay under Escobar and over the arbitrary PA limits. Orlando Arcia has a wRC+ of 27 (!) but he’s in AAA and we might not see him for a while. Kole Calhoun is at 30 and Chris Davis is at 33, but both had horrific starts to the year and maybe something was wrong with them. So there’s hope. But Escobar? Escobar is an awful hitter.
Plus his significantly below-average defense. He’s long been one of my least favorite players
Well, the dude is named for a moth, what do you expect?
Yes, I know it’s really the Spanish variant of “Hercules”… but for a guy with a YTD ISO of .077, obvious jokes are obvious. What’s crazy is that in 2013 he put up an ISO of .066, and a wRC+ of 49, over a full season of 642 PA. It’s not like his defense is making up for it. He’s started every one of the Royal’s 85 games so far this season. Why do you give so many PA to such a black hole?
Because they really dont have a better option. Mondesi and Torres are the only thing they have in terms of a replacement SS on the 40 man and they, so far, are somehow even worse at the plate than Escobar. I guess they could have gone out and signed a better SS but everyone and their dog knew the Royals were going to be terrible this year so why bother?
I imagine Nicky Lopez gets a chance at some point during the year (was just promoted to AAA last week) but even he is still a glove first guy with serious questions about his ability to hit.
TL:DR The Royals suck and dont have anyone better.
HA! Forget concerns about SSS – in each of the past three seasons he’s carried a wRC+ of >70 exactly zero times in very nearly 2000 total PA.
This is literally who he is.
The Mets breathe a sigh of relief that this article wasn’t about their June, which was only the worst in FRANCHISE history.
I have a real question: is a team that is 40-50 really “10 games under .500”? Aren’t they 5 games under .500? A theoretical second team that is 45-45 would be at .500, and would be five (not 10) games ahead of them in the standings. I think you could say the 40-50 team is 10 “wins” under .500 but not games. Am I wrong?
Pedantic arguments are pedantic
Fangraphs aside, baseball isn’t mathematics. So yes, but no.
At 40-50, they need ten wins to get to .500. That’s the idea behind it – what they need to do to get to .500.
I guess this is the crux of my confusion. They don’t need ten “games” they need ten “wins”. I’m not trying to be pedantic, a lot of times i see teams referred to as “20 games under .500” and I really don’t know whether they mean the team is 20-60 or 30-50. I guess the ‘games’ description depends on whether you are comparing to another team, or to an arbitrary win percentage.
Or to look at it another way, they don’t need ten wins, they need to change 5 of their losses to wins.
But those games happened. And they can’t be changed retroactively. To get to .500 they need to play 10 more games and win those. That’s what it means.
If you realize we say “10 games under” as a shortened version of “10 wins in 10 games to get to .500” it makes more sense.
This isn’t even mathematics, it’s semantics. Things mean what people understand them to mean, it’s how language works. That said this used to bother me as well.
I don’t understand what they mean, is the point. If i’m a game out of first place, and I win that day and the first place team doesn’t play, I’m a half game out of first place. But if I’m a game under .500 and I play and win, I have reached it? One of these ‘games’ is worth twice as much as the other.
It’s different because you are comparing it to another team’s record rather than it’s own. If the 1st place team is at .500 and you are 1 game under .500 then you are only half a game behind the leader so a win would tie you in both scenarios.
The amount of games under .500 will always be losses minus wins. fjtorres is correct for why that it is.
Ah ha! Good explanation. Now this makes sense!
But you understand now, because it’s been explained to you, right?
When I am 10 feet under water, I need to swim up 10 feet to get to the surface (.500). I don’t swim 5 feet and hope that the water recedes. I don’t travel back in time to a point where I was only 5 feet under water so that I only need to swim 5 feet.
The reference point to .500 is to evaluate a team against mediocrity and the number of wins needed to reach that point, not against a fantasy team that happens to be winning exactly 50% of their games (where “Games Back” would come into play).
If my math is correct, I believe the Reds have tripled them in runs since June 5th (150-50).
While I know it doesn’t work that way, it makes intuitive sense, since they have roughly 3 times as many good hitters.
Three times zero is still zero.
Votto/Suarez/Gennett are not zeroes bruh
Swing and a miss…
How is “We Can’t Not Talk About the Royals” something a professional writer chooses as the title of an article? What is gained versus something like “We Must Talk About the Royals”?
The answer is nothing. No clarity is added by the double negative, and in fact a strong argument can be made that clarity is lost. It isn’t clever, punny or humorous. It is more words, delivering the same (even arguably less) meaning. It is frankly bad writing, nothing else.
This is not just my opinion, George Orwell championed this in Politics and the English Language.
Such poor grammatical choices detract from what should be the focus of the article, which is that the Royals cant hit. The purpose of language is to convey meaning. Choosing intentionally confusing or ambiguous language deteriorates the quality of the piece. This isn’t style, it is blatant disregard for the purpose of the writer: conveyance of ideas and analysis.
Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
You must be real fun at parties.
“This isn’t style.” Yes, yes it is. It is completely stylistic. The author (and editor) knows proper English. He knows a double negative is improper English. He choose it anyways. That’s a stylistic choice.
“We Can’t Not Talk About this Comment”
The grammatical misstep directly impacts the view of the article and relates better to the topic at hand than ‘We Must Talk About the Royals.’
We Must Talk implies we NEED to. We Can’t Not implies we can’t just ignore them because they’re horrific.
This is completely your opinion. Just as it is my opinion you’re wrong.
I bet “We Must Talk About (player/team)” has been done enough times already this season and Jeff just wanted to print something different.
… at least we can’t not say they’re not top ten worst. 😉
If you were a little smarter than you would have grasped the nuanced meaning indicating a diminished value. By using the double negative the author is clearly implying that he doesn’t want to talk about the Royals but feels that he must.
If you were to ask me about girl and I replied “I wouldn’t say she’s not pretty” and then you asked me about a different girl and I said, “I would say she is pretty ” then would you think I thought they were equally attractive? Because most people would understand the double negative to mean that I preferred the looks of the 2nd girl
You’re more than welcome to write your own article on the website you get paid to write for.
While I don’t disagree that the double negative is usually considered grammatically incorrect, I don’t not disagree that it’s clearly a stylistic choice in this case.
Sometimes a double negative is a perfectly cromulent phrase to write.
Between this and the games behind comment,this comments section will definitely make the All Pedantic all-star team.
When you know less about language than you think, and you rely on crutches like hand-waved references to Great Authors, you might want to refrain from posting lest you embarrass yourself on the internet in front of the world and everyone.
This is not the story. They were expected to be bad. The story is that one of the teams currently projected to make the playoffs is almost as bad. WSN are around 90 WRC+ since June 1. Now that’s interesting.
Washington has struggled but saying they’re almost as bad as the Royals is a bit of a stretch. The difference between the Royals and the Nationals is about the same as that of the Nationals and Dodgers.
I agree that everyone was preparing for a lot Royals seasons. However, there still was hope that the offense could be average, and in a weak division (other than the Indians, every team had a flawed outlook), there was thought they could be an average 70-80 win with some breaks. The fact that the offense has been this bad, is a bit of a surprise, and coupled with bad pitching (as expected) and this has been surprising.
When the Royals signed Goins (to go with Escobar and Mondesi) i made a joke that they were going to have the worst hitting middle infield in baseball history.
I somehow gave them too much credit.
“the Royals just haven’t been able to get a single thing going.”
I don’t think the Royals even know any more what one of those single things is.
Since integration;
-Worst ever season by a qualified SS, Niefi Perez. -2.9 fWAR, 2002 Kansas City Royals.
-3rd worst season ever by a qualified SS, Yunesky Betencourt -2.5 fWAR, 2009 Kansas City Royals.
-18th worst season by a qualified SS, Angel Berroa. -1.5 fWAR, 2006 Kansas City Royals.
-Alcides Escobar, Shortstop Kansas City Royals current 2018 fWAR; -1.1.
By the end of this season, the Royals will very likely have fielded 4 of the worst shortstops in MLB history, in just the past 15 years.
Buddy Biancalana has to be smiling somewhere.
last 20 years- the Royals SS combined have had a 14.9 combined WAR. Worst in MLB SD 15.1, Pit 22.8, Az 24.1, and Cin 33.8 next 4 worst ones.
There are 37 guys who while playing at SS have more WAR than that.
Or to also put it in perspective- it’s the same amount of WAR as Corey Seager in only 355 games for Seager at SS.
“I don’t know how it could ever get worse.”
This is a fun way to end the article because as the chart indicates, the Tigers had a sOPS+ (identical to these Royals) in Sept/Oct 2002, and then they came back the next year and immediately put up a stout 38
Pretty interesting that all the worst months listed are either April, September, or June. Makes sense that teams could be brutal at the beginning or end of the season, but I wonder why June?*
*I mean, it’s most likely just a noise thing, but it’s more fun to believe in some cosmic cause of suckiness that sets in 60 games into the season.
it makes no sense at all does it? April and September as you mention makes total sense- but June? you would think possible reasons for June would pervade into May/July/August- injuries coming immediately into mind- but no.
Expanding it- there’s been 22 months where a team has had a sOPS+ of less than 60. Of those extra 7- only Giants July 2008, Mets July 1983, and Boston Braves August 1922 were outside of April/June/September.
For the 22 worst months
April- 5
May- 0
June- 7
July- 2
August- 1
September-7
One point- April up to 1960 I don’t think you normally saw teams playing 15 games in April. So for it to have 5 months in there is remarkable. The number of team months in April far less than any of the other months. (3 of the 5 Aprils on the expanded list had only 15 or 16 games). There were another 8 Aprils that were sub 60- but team played between 10-14 games.
kind of crazy that 6 of the 15 worst offensive months ever have come in the last 16 years.
Oh man, what it must have been like for those 2003 Tigers… they were near historic terrible to close 2002, and then they “hit the ground running” about as well as LT Dan dropped out of a helicopter. Can’t imagine the “here we go again” atmosphere of that clubhouse.