Why I Am Pulling for the Royals

The Fall Classic is finally upon us, and it certainly is an unexpected matchup. For the first time since 2002 and only the second time ever, the World Series is comprised of two Wild Card teams facing off - for teams that consider a playoff berth a consolation prize after not winning their respective division, I think they'll be happy with a pennant flying in centerfield next season.

For the Giants, it is their third pennant in 5 years (2010, 2012, 2014, they hate odd years), which I guess makes them one step below a dynasty. If they win this World Series against the Royals, then will be indeed a bona fide dynasty, only 5 teams have won that ratio of titles to years (early 1910 A's, late '30s Yankees, early '50s Yankees, early '70s A's, late '90s Yankees). With surprising 2014 performances from guys like Joe Panik and Yusmeiro Petit, bench play from Joaquin Arias and Travis Ishikawa, clutch hitting from starters Brandon Crawford (he hit the first ever postseason grand slam by a shortstop in the Wild Card game against the Pirates) and Buster Posey, and a cult following of Hunter Pence, the Giants have eliminated star power from their winning concoction and relied on pitching and defense to get them there. 

But I'll say it: I'm sick of the Giants. And the Cardinals too for that matter; for the last 5 World Series, the NL participant has been one of the two. It's not that I actively dislike the Giants or their style of play (although Bruce Bochy looks like he always has a paper cut between his fingers), I just want to see someone else playing in October. These classic NL teams have a fundamental way of baseball that is not necessarily thrilling to watch but it is great tactical baseball and that's why they are there, but I want to see the Pirates or the young Nationals take their shot at a title. But I guess I'll have to wait. 

That's not the only reason I'm rooting for the Royals, though. For starters, finishing a game behind the Tigers, I tip my cap to the Royals for gritting their teeth and winning when it mattered. In the 19 games they played against the Central winners, the Royals went 6-13 and allowed 100 runs to the Tigers, the most they allowed to any team by 17 runs. They had to do some serious work against the rest of the Central (15 of their last 19 games were against the Central), and they did, finishing 33-24 against the White Sox, Indians, and Twins. The Royals also saw their season dwindling away in the dog days of summer; as of July 21st they were 8 games back in the Central, so what else do they do than rip off a 41-27 record for the second half and had a chance at a game 163 for the Central championship if the Tigers hadn't won on the last day of the season.

So yeah, the Royals battle, they're gritty, they're underdogs, however you want to frame it. They've overcome the odds, etc. They're the first team ever with a World Series berth without a 20 home run hitter (Gordon led the team with 19) and a 15-game winner (Shields and Ventura both had 14), which is fun, but it still isn't why I'm rooting for them.

The city. As I was driving to work the other day listening to my morning radio show, host Ryan Schuiling (@ryanschuiling on Twitter) made an excellent point about the city of Kansas City. Being one of the smallest markets in baseball, KC doesn't always have the electric crowd you've seen in October. They ranked 11th in AL attendance and haven't cracked 2 million fans since 1991. While The K is a beautiful stadium, Kansas City just isn't a hotbed for fandemonium until it matters (October). 

We all know the Royals' last World Series was 1985, flirting with 30 years. That's a long time.

But what else do they have to root for?

When I mention small markets, I mean more than just attendance - Kansas City only has one other professional team, the Kansas City Chiefs. Since 2007, the Chiefs are 42-75 and have lost in the first round of the playoffs twice. In fact, since their inception in 1963, the Chiefs have won one Super Bowl: 1969, 45 years ago. Only a small sample of their fan base has seen two city championships, most have probably seen one, and probably the majority haven't seen any (or can remember any).

Compare this to Detroit, let's say. Detroit, routinely in the top 10 sports cities in the country, has the Tigers, Red Wings, Pistons, and Lions. The Tigers have won 4 straight AL Central titles as well as 2 pennants in the last 10 years. The Red Wings have won 4 Stanley Cups in my lifetime ('96, '97, '02, '08), and have been in the playoffs literally every single year I have been alive. The Pistons have the 2004 championship most recently and the early 1990s Bad Boys which won 2 titles themselves. The Lions, are, well, the Lions. I'm prouder of their 2008 0-16 season than I am of the Red Wings playoff streak to be honest, but the point is we are spoiled. The Tigers didn't win this year but the Red Wings will be competitive and the Lions are moving forward. 

Let's look at San Francisco. Even though they don't have a hockey team, the 49ers have been a powerful force in the NFC the last few years, going to the conference championship game in 2011 and 2013 and going to the Super Bowl in 2012. Even the Golden State Warriors are fun young team with playoff berths the last two years and one of the best shooters in the game in Stephen Curry. Oh and their baseball team has 2 World Series in the last 5 years. That's fine. 

As Schuiling pointed out, Kansas City does not have a whole lot to hang their hat on in terms of athletic achievement. Kansas City, Missouri, however, was awarded a municipal gold medal for their Anti-Drug Sales Tax campaign - in 1995. 

I know as an independent blogger I should be remaining neutral, but what was the first thing you learned in kindergarten (other than how to spell my last name)? Sharing. 

I'm looking at you, San Fran. Kansas City deserves a win. You've had plenty.

Thanks for reading. 

Bonds and Clemens

In yesterday's post about the All New Jersey team, I had to compare Joe Medwick's 1937 OPS to Barry Bonds' career OPS of 1.051, and I was searching around Barry Bonds' Baseball Reference page and was just blown away. I texted my good friend telling him that it breaks my heart that Barry Bonds is surrounded by controversy. Bonds did use steroids, but it was his personal trainer that give them to him and they were banned a few years after his ingestion. The problem lies with the investigation when Bonds went to federal trial for accounts of perjury and obstruction of justice. That he even had to go to trial tells the writers and voters that with this whole conflict, Barry Bonds shot himself in the foot at being voted into the Hall of Fame. Especially now with the ballot eligibility shortened to 10 years, he may be on his way out (he's gotten ~35% of the vote the past two years - you need 75%). I think down the road, the air will be cleared and the Era Based Committee will vote him in, but for now, I'm going to argue that even before Bonds allegedly began using steroids, he would have been a Hall of Famer - it was the way he handled the controversy and investigations where he lost it all.

In the Hall of Fame museum in Cooperstown, the only thing dedicated to Barry Bonds is his 756th home run ball. It sits quietly in a small 2 foot case with an asterisk written on it. The Hall of Fame rarely shows things that have writing/autographs on them, but there's a historical obligation to show this ball. The fact that it sits right behind the Hank Aaron room (that's right, room) goes to show that Hank Aaron is still considered the bona fide home run king. Many people will just meander past it to go see the no-hitter artifacts and won't even realize that Bonds is represented. 

Let's say Bonds played the HOF-eligible minimum ten seasons and was only in San Francisco for a few years rather than most of his career. With this qualifier, he would have played 10 seasons (1986-1996), giving us a wide margin before he even considered using steroids. Here's what we have to work with: .288/.404/.548, 334 HR, 993 RBI, 1595 hits, 380 steals - and here's where it gets good: 3 MVP awards (in 4 years, with another runner up), 6 Gold Gloves, 6 Silver Sluggers, 6 All Stars. Even in ten years, he's a member of the 300-300 club, something only 8 other players have done (none in such a short amount of time). 334 home runs would still allow him to crack the top 100 (even higher if it were still 1996), and 3 MVPs is more than a heck of a lot of Hall of Famers have. Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Yogi Berra, Mike Schmidt, and Jimmie Foxx have 3, Frank Thomas, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Cal Ripken, Robin Yount, and Frank Robinson both have 2. I'm not saying Barry Bonds is better than these players, but when you look at this problem mathematically, he is. The Hall of Fame accepts the top 1.8% of all players ever to have a major league at-bat or defensive inning, and only a handful have multiple MVPs. Even fewer have this many MVPs in 10 years. I think he was a shoo-in and threw it all away.

Here's a fun video of former Pirates manager Jim Leyland cussing out a rookie Barry Bonds (warning - lots of bad language).

The same goes for Clemens, whose rookie year was two years earlier than Bonds'. We'll stop his career at 1996 as well, his last year with Boston. Here's what we are working with: 

• 192-111
• 3.06 ERA
• 38 shutouts
• 2,590 strikeouts
• 1.158 WHIP
• 3 CYA, an MVP, and CYA runner up
• He also had 2 20-strikeout games, once in 1986 and once in 1996

Wow. He had 7 CYA in his entire career, but 3 would put him T3rd all time with schmucks like Tom Seaver and Sandy Koufax. His 3.06 ERA and 38 shutouts would be in the top 40 of Hall of Famers (of 72), and just below the average HOF ERA of 2.97 and 41 (respectively), especially in an era of baseball that shutouts are so rare. His 2,590 strikeouts would put him 15th among Hall of Fame pitchers. 

But the problem is, Clemens was an absolute jerk when it came to his steroids investigation. Uncooperative, immature, and just plain rude - Clemens made no friends during his investigation. He used steroids and lied about it. The first part is forgivable (maybe not so much that he's worth the HOF), but the second part is not. When the writers are asked to cast their ballots, they look at the character and quality of the person as well as on-the-field stats. I think that's what would cost Clemens his spot in Cooperstown. Even though he would still be there if he retired after his time in Beantown.

Like I said earlier, it breaks my heart. These two guys had such supreme talent that they reigned over baseball - Clemens from '86 to '91 and Bonds from '90 to '95 - and swept up all the great postseason awards. But they threw it away. Not with using steroids - but how they reacted to it afterwards. Kids - be honest.

Thanks for reading. 

2014 Predictions: NL West

This is the last division, folks. We are nearly there, thanks for bearing with me. The NL West is the weakest division in the league and has been for a few years. Not the worst, but the weakest. Their division winning percentage of .492 is the 3rd lowest in baseball, which is not bad, but they only had one team above .500 (one was also at .500). The other divisions that had lower winning percentages were the NL Central (who had the 66-96 Cubs) and the AL West (who had the 51-111 Astros). This will be a one horse race for the majority of the year if not the whole year. The 1927 Yankees spent every single day in 1st place; I can see the Dodgers doing the same thing. They start the season in Australia against their only real competitor Diamondbacks - if they get a 2 game lead, they will not look back.

1. Los Angeles 98-64

I think the Dodgers have a chance to win 100 games this year, I really do. It depends on injuries. Last year, Hanley Ramirez, Carl Crawford, and Matt Kemp had multiple trips to the DL. Puig missed a number of games with a sore hip (presumably from sliding into home on his walkoff home run - you'll learn I do not like anything about Puig). Adrian Gonzalez was in and out of the lineup in May; nothing serious, but it was still a missed bat. Zack Grienke broke his collarbone in a fight with Carlos Quentin and missed a few weeks. Fellow hurlers Chris Capuano and Ted Lilly went on the DL at least once each, as did both Ellises (Mark and AJ). That said, the Dodgers have a ton of talent up and down the dugout. The 1-6 hitters will most likely be Crawford, Puig, Ramirez, Gonzalez, Kemp, Uribe - holy cow.

Outfielders Crawford, Ethier, and Puig.

Then the rotation looks like Kershaw (best pitcher in the game), Grienke, Ryu, newly signed Dan Haren, and Paul Maholm or Josh Beckett. The bullpen also has flaming arms of Brian Wilson and Kenley Jansen. Playing in the NL West the Dodgers will steamroll their way to the top with ease. 

2. Arizona 83-79

The Dbacks have gone 81-81 the past two years. Short of signing Mark Trumbo,

Slugger Mark Trumbo joins the Diamondbacks outfield in 2014.

the offseason was pretty quiet - picked up aging Bronson Arroyo, Eric Chavez, and Henry Blanco. Another solid pick up was Addison Reed to bolster the bullpen and give JJ Putz and Brad Ziegler support.  Gerardo Parra, coming off of a Gold Glove season, will continue to blossom in his career. Cody Ross is another powerful hitter that will play alongside Trumbo in the outfield. Goldschmidt should win the MVP this year. Last season's snub aside, he has the capability to hit .330/30/130. If he does that, there shouldn't be any questions about his value and therefore should win the award. That said, the Dbacks should also go over .500 to give him a shot. The infield rounds out with Aaron Hill, Didi Gregorius, and Martin Prado. A solid roster, but weak on pitching (Corbin, Cahill, Miley, and now Arroyo).

3. San Francisco Giants 81-81
2013 was a bad year for the Giants, mainly because Pedro Gomez wasn't following them around for the whole season. They will likely have the identical starting 7 position players, with the exception of newly signed slugger Mike Morse.

After hopping around the league with Seattle, Baltimore, and Washington, Morse landed a home by the Bay.

All the pieces were there for the Giants, so its a bit of a conundrum that they did not perform better. They are an excellent hitting team; with a team batting average of .260 (.269 excluding pitchers' stats) was 4th in the NL and 8th in the MLB. The problem is the long ball, the Giants finished second to last in the team AB per HR category, hitting a home run once every 51 at bats, barely one every other game. They also finished 25th in extra base hits. They are a singles team that didn't play enough small ball. Matt Cain underperformed, going 8-10, as did Barry Zito (5-11) and Tim Lincecum (10-14). It was frustrating to say the least. Their power numbers will go back up this year; Kung Fu Panda finished with about 10 fewer bombs than usual, and Buster Posey will add a few more. 81-81 is a low ball I think, considering they will play almost 40 games against the very weak Colorado and San Diego. They won the title in 2010 and 2012, so 2014 would fit the mold. Bruce Bochy won't put up with another sub-.500 year.

4. Colorado 72-90
Offensively, the Rockies are great. A force to be reckoned with, even. If Cuddy can match last year, look out. Losing the Toddfather hurts, but Justin Morneau is a nearly identical version of him (minus the awesome facial and the fact that he is Canadian, poor guy) in terms of doubles and average.

Morneau signed a two-year deal with Colorado - big shoes to fill.

Carlos Gonzalez is a stud, making them a lethal 3-4-5 combo. Tulowitzki, if he stays healthy, will produce a ton, making this lineup a pitcher's bad dream, but add in a respectable .280 average from DJ LeMahieu and a growing Nolan Arenado, this is quickly turning into a pitcher's nightmare, especially in the thin air of Denver. The problem is, their pitching is as bad as their offense is good. Last year they had a team ERA of 4.44, last in the NL and 28th in the MLB. Sure they signed Brett Anderson and Boone Logan, but they still have career ERAs of 3.81 and 4.39, respectively. Not great additions for a place where the ball flies so easily. Other notable additions include Drew Stubbs, LaTroy Hawkins, and Brandon Barnes, to fill in the outfield and bullpen. They'll have to score an ungodly amount of runs to compete, and you know what they say: defense wins championships.

5. San Diego 70-92
Despite the offseason acquisitions of Joaquin Benoit

Benoit, coming off of a great year with Detroit, works out with his new team.

and Josh Johnson, the rotation needs some work. With starters of Eric Stults and Andrew Cashner, things won't be pretty this year. Cashner had a solid year, going 10-9 with a 3.09 ERA, but he has Chris Sale Syndrome: no offense! The 2013 Padres placed 24th in runs scored and 23rd in average in the MLB. Everth Cabrera will be back from his suspension and hopefully Seth Smith can minimize his strikeout totals as he adds some power to the spacious Petco Park. Last year, the Padres won 76 games, beating their pythagorean total by 4 games. Truthfully, I think 70 wins is generous, but we'll see. 

That's the divisions, folks. Thanks for sticking with me. Next week I'll be doing award and postseason predictions, oh boy! Have a great weekend.