Robinson Tejeda's first three starts as a Royal have been outstanding, so much so that I started wondering: Did any of the Royals' standout pitchers make an even better first impression? After hitting the game logs, I can report: Yes, one. Tejeda leads all candidates in fewest hits/ER allowed, and finishes second in K's. While he can't compete with Tejeda's ERA, the #1 guy gets the nod for turning in two complete games in his first three Royals starts.

First, here's how Robinson Tejeda fared in his first three starts as a Royal:

(2-0, 0.55)

IP        H   ER    BB   K

16.1    6      1      7     16

I compared these results with the 10 best Royals starters I could think of off-hand, plus two future flame-outs who I recalled getting off to promising starts. The standings appear below in reverse order.

Continue reading this post »

In some quarters, the trade of Ross Gload to the Florida Marlins brought jubilation. But it was devastating news for the locally based Ross Gload fan club American Gloadiators, co-chaired by Joel Prado (me) and Alias To Be Named Later (my boss Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka). We are preparing a Something Awful.com front-page retrospective about Ross Gload, and I wanted to reach out to anyone at Royals Review who might be artistically inclined. Artwork we could really use includes:

* Drawings of Ross Gload that display a "child's rendering of his idol" aesthetic

* Any Photoshop alterings that present Ross Gload in a favorable, heroic light.

* The catch phrase "Gload will explode" presents many possibilities.

The piece is tentatively scheduled to run two weeks from today -- we were waiting to see where Gloadie ended up before starting the writing process. Anyone who's interested, please post your JPEGs in this thread and/or send them to garbageday@somethingawful.com. Not only will you be credited at the bottom of the article, but also you can know you've done your part to educate a befuddled public about Gload's hidden greatness -- the things that "don't show up in the box score".

When I was about seven years old, I started ranking players based on statistics. I started with the Royals, because their totals were the easiest to come by in the newspaper. Later, I sorted players from other teams based on their back-of-the-baseball-card numbers. I organized the hierarchy by two measures: Batting average and ERA. A baseball board game, which assigned outcomes to dice-roll combinations, influenced this decision: Based on my experiences with this game, Wade Boggs was the best player in history, while Davey Concepcion was a complete disgrace to this ostensible All-Star roster. When I reached the 10-12 range, I started multiplying part-time statistics so that they reached the plate-appearances minimum for batting-title qualifiers, and firmly believed this is what those players could have accomplished had they gotten a chance/stayed healthy. I mourned the star-crossed Kal Daniels, who obviously would've gone 40/40 in 1987 if not for the wrathful fates.

Continue reading this post »

The All-Star Game takes place tomorrow, and even though the commentators will make it a disgusting Yankees lovefest (more than usual, that is) because it's taking place in New York, I can't wait to watch. For me, the MLB All-Star Game not only surpasses its equivalent in other sports, but also ranks among the best events of the year. However, many journalists and fans dismiss it as a flawed, overblown exhibition. I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity offered by one of this week's tragically sports-free days to champion the much-maligned 'Midsummer Classic.'

Criticism: The All-Star Game, an exhibition, should not determine home-field advantage.

Previously, home-field advantage in the World Series alternated between the leagues, an arbitrarily instituted process that in no way rewarded teams (or leagues) for their performance. By contrast, the All-Star Game plan favors the superior league, with the competition being a reliable indicator of merit. The AL has won the past ten All-Star Games played to a decision, and, not coincidentally, has dominated interleague play and the postseason as well.

Criticism: The All-Star Game outcome, which now carries too much gravity, was previously completely irrelevant.

When the All-Star Game ended in an unsatisfying tie in 2002, Fire Joe Morgan whipping boy Jeffrey Flanagan decried the ensuing uproar in his Star column, challenging readers to name the winning All-Star squad from previous years. As usual, Flanagan missed the point. Let's say you play pickup basketball every Saturday, with the same group of guys. You might not be able to detail the specific won-loss chronology that took place a few weeks earlier, but at the time it damn well mattered that there was a winner and loser. The promise of definitive won/loss closure sustains dramatic tension, and when that sense was stripped away, the 2002 game went from being one of the best All-Star installments (extra innings) to the absolute, definitive worst. Now, due to the home-field advantage arrangement, the All-Star Game carries almost a post-season level of portent.

Criticism: The All-Star Game is not played or managed like a normal game, which is why it should not serve as a home-field measuring stick.

Unlike the All-Star Games in other sports, MLB's is played like a normal game, at least in terms of gameplay dynamics. The central conflict -- pitcher vs. batter -- is completely undiluted. In the NBA, the defender vs. offensive player conflict lacks heft because the best defensive specialists (Bowen, Camby) usually aren't selected. As a result, the match-ups become offensive player vs. offensive player acting in a lackluster defensive capacity. The NFL's Pro Bowl is a complete travesty because injury risks prevent the defense from playing with malice. The MLB's All-Star Game presents pitchers trying their best against batters doing the same, generating meaningful results in a string of compelling confrontations.

While it's undeniable that the All-Star Game isn't managed like a regular game, it's worth considering that managers usually don't have 32-man rosters filled with legitimate contributors. Also, in one-game-takes-all postseason situations,  which the All-Star game, with its home-field stakes, replicates, managers have been known to make unorthodox choices, such as placing players out of position and using starting pitchers in relief on two-days rest. Finally, due to measures taken to prevent another tie-game debacle, managers now save some players for late-inning substitutions instead of replacing players willy-nilly after every inning.

Criticism: The mandatory representation from each team cheapens the rosters.

As a Royals fan, I've recognized the ridiculousness of representatives such as Ken Harvey and Mark Redman. However, while I certainly wish superior Royals existed to take their spots, I'm still glad as a viewer that someone was there to wear the KC hat. Royals fans can take legitimate pride in representatives such as Soria, but even the Redmans of the world spark debate, create intrigue (is this guy seriously going to get into the game and face the likes of Pujols with home-field on the line?) and generate an endless supply of running jokes. Besides, I'd take a goofy Royals choice over yet another Red Sox or Yankees player (the likely result if representation were abolished) any day, much as I prefer when March Madness chooses small-conference schools with its at-large bids rather than 8th place BCS squads.

________________________________________________________________

Some of my favorite sports memories -- Bo Jackson's home run at the height of his "Bo Knows" advertising campaign, Hank Blalock's game-clincher off Eric "Game Over" Gagne at the height of his steroid-aided invincibility -- came from MLB's All-Star Game. Apparently I'm pretty much alone in treasuring these moments, as neither provided any YouTube hits to which I could link. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to seeing Soria preserve the American League's dynasty; to heckling A-Rod, Jeter and the rest of McCarver's lovebirds; and to watching some relatively underrated small-market player steal the spotlight. I'd even enjoy it if Varitek ended up as the star, as Unworthy Selectee Makes Good always makes for an intriguing storyline. Who can forget when Terry Steinbach shrugged off his below-average stats en route to becoming the 1988 game's MVP? *Crickets* Oh well, trust me, it was kinda cool.

I'm wondering if anyone else at Royals Review plays Baseball Mogul or other statistically based computer baseball simulators. Just in case anyone else shares this nerdish leaning (people who've walked in while I was playing the game have speculated that I was preparing taxes), I wanted to start a thread for people to discuss their experiences with these games, strategies, what they've learned about general managing, etc. I've found the game very educational regarding payroll, arbitration and the amateur draft, but as I quickly learned that few non-players want to hear me discuss the awe-inspiring 102-60 2015 Royals, I figured this might be the place to find like-minded enthusiasts.

I haven't contributed any diaries lately, mostly because I've been preparing year-end lists for the various publications to which I contribute. I get an average of roughly 25 albums in the mail each week, and I set the best ones aside in stacks. I tend to those stacks throughout December, listening to all the contenders to make the final Top Ten cuts. Given that we occasionally discuss music on here, I wanted to list the best of what I heard this year, in hopes that people might find something they like. "Recommended if you like" comparisons are provided below the relatively obscure artists (defined as musicians who have not appeared on the cover of a major music magazine.)

Continue reading this post »

So far in September, John Buck is batting .275/.318/.450. In his Royals career, he's never hit below .275 in September (.275 in '04, .321 in '05, .300 in '06). His composite total, in 248 AB, is .290/.327/.512, with 13 HR and 40 RBI. If he were a Yankee, we'd have heard Tim McCarver shout "Buck rhymes with clutch!" or some such nonsense.

Applying the nebulous standards of the word "clutch," this could be used as evidence for both Buck supporters and Buck bashers.

Pro side: He saves a little bit in his tank throughout the year to ensure enhanced performance during the stretch drive. The fact that the pennant race fails to materialize isn't his fault.

Anti side: Buck is actually anti-clutch, which is why he only produces when his team has been officially eliminated, making the games pressure-free and essentially meaningless.

In a more tangible corridor of the goofy "clutch" realm, here are some 2007 numbers that disprove the assertion, occasionally voiced on this site, that Buck only produces during blowouts:

Late and Close (PA in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck): .309/.356/.709

PA in games with margin >4: .196/.324/.339