FanPost

The Dreaded Second Week

Over at the "Season Defined" thread, it has been said by some that one series does not define a season.  I fully agree--two series will define the season.  Based on the undeniable statistical evidence of W-L record (how's that for SABR-saavy?), one can see the disturbing trend that, since the anomaly of 2003, the second week of the season has been the one to send this team into its cellar-dwelling tailspin:

 

2004

  • First Week:  4-2
  • Second Week:  0-6
  • Lose 8 of the next 12
  • Finish April 8-16
  • 2005

  • First Week:  3-3
  • Second Week:  1-5
  • Lose 11 of the next 13 and a whopping 18 of the next 22
  • Finish April 6-18 (it gets worse)
  • 2006

  • First Week:  2-3
  • Second Week:  0-6
  • Lose 9 of the next 12
  • Finish April a dismal 5-19
  • 2007

  • First Week: 2-4
  • Second Week:  1-5
  • Improvement:  5-7 the rest of the month, but because of the hole already dug:
  • Finish April 8-16
  •  

    In these four second weeks, the Royals were bested by such pitching luminaries as Jon Adkins, Joe Roa, Ryan Franklin, and the Tampa Bay triumverate of Travis Harper, Seth McClung, and Brian Meadows.

    While this may be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it has been disheartening that any hope, false or otherwise, has routinely been completely dashed by the end of the second week of the season, leading to such things as the Tony Pena fully dressed shower and the emergence of Self-Appointed Team Effort Inspector Scott Elarton, which, while providing a lot of sarcasm material, does nothing to make the fan feel better.  A single series or a single week does not really define a whole season--but, in recent memory, it certainly has seemed to do that.  My hope is that the Royals have at least an average week, getting one from the Yanks and taking the series with the Twins.  It would be a small and, maybe in the long run, meaningless victory.  But it would sure feel nice to have hope entering the third week of the season for a change.

    This FanPost was written by a member of the Royals Review community. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the editors and writers of this site.