Frustrating loss tonight, and back to eight games under .500. Those dastardly Orioles! Essentially this is the result I expected last night, only this time Sherrill was able to finish the job.

• According to the fangraphs.com's version of WPA, Mike Aviles was the worst Royal of all tonight, at least among position players. An 0-5 with two GIDPs will do that. When he wasn't GIDPing, he was leaving the bases loaded. Has Aviles let success go to his head? Is he an unclutch destroyer of our national innocence like Alex Rodriguez?
• A lame and disappointing start for Hochevar, who couldn't avoid a big inning in the third, and couldn't quite keep the ball down enough.
• Your Jimmy Gobble ERA update is: 7.40. Um... not good. Not good at all. Gobble may be one of the 100 Greatest Royals of All-Time by the end of the season (Retro?) but he isn't doing anyone much good at this point.
  
• Gathright was decent tonight, getting to first base three times. Does anyone know Kenny Williams's cell number?
• Hey! Billy Butler hit another single. He's the new Grimace!
• Congrats to Alex Gordon and Mark Teahen for both homering tonight! With twenty combined homers out of third base and rightfield, the Royals have the AL Central shaking.
• Did anyone expect Alex to deliver in the 9th inning? I wasn't around on the game thread at the time, but I suspect there wasn't much juice.
  
• 19,756 people watched the game in the stands. It looks like it won't be hard for me to catch an Orioles game this September when I'm living in D.C.
  

I have much longer post in the works that centers around our catching situation and a few of our more questioable roster decisions, but this topic has been burning a hole in my head for  a little while now. I'm not going to call specific people out or anything--though maybe I should if everyone would improve the way Jome Run Jose did after I dissed his plate discipline--but I've seen numerous comments in game threads and fanposts that go something like "over/under for pitches Gordon sees in his AB: 1" or "of course Gordon goes after the first pitch" or "Gordon kills another rally." I'm not going to tell people to take a different attitude towards Gordon, because that would be prententious of me, but I feel as if overall the negativity towards A-Gord is a bit misdirected. Not wishing to pick on Will, let's look at part of what he wrote on Alex in his nicely done "Auto-Interview II" piece, as I feel as if i should expand a bit on the subject of what kind of hitter Alex has shown himself to be in the majors thus far.

In over 800 big league PAs he's a .253/.322/.408 hitter. He is 24 years old, so he's right on the hinge between still being young and being in his prime. Look at his comparables on his baseball-reference page and tell me how I should feel. Whatever it is that we expected he'd be... we may have to give up those dreams. Fortunately, this is an experience that most of us should be familiar with.

Will's right, of course, in that Gordon has been disappointing relative to what was expected. In hindsight it's easy to say that perhaps Gordon would be better off right now if he had done been learning in AAA rather than being sent right up to the majors, despite the consensus at the time that Alex had nothing left to prove in the minors. The issue that I feel the need to expand on, as this was already brought up in the last couple game threads, is that saying Gordon is a number/number/number hitter for his very short career in the bigs or this season doesn't tell the whole story. Just because it now appears that Alex isn't going to be a superstar doesn't mean we can't still be excited about him improving this year and down the line.

For one, let's look at something that should be clear to everyone by now: Alex Gordon has, in fact, improved overall since last season. Last year's HBP-boosted .247/.314/.411 line isn't exactly blown away by Alex's current .265/.345/.419, but there's definitely caveats here. That .314 OBP had a lot to do with getting plunked 13 times last year, and this year's .345 figure is only slightly boosted by 4 HBPs. After walking only 41 times in 151 games last year, Gordon has already taken 32 free passes. Gordon is also seeing 3.95 pitches per plate appearance this year, which .03 more than David DeJesus. The former is critiscized by many Royals fans as being an impatient hitter at the plate, while the latter is considered to have a very good plate approach. It's also worth noting that that 3.95 P/PA is highest on the team. Now I know this will bring up the totally reasonable argument that patience is not the same thing as working the count effectively to drive the ball--because clearly Alex still needs to work on that--but Gordon is the last player on this team that should be dismissed as someone who isn't working the count.

Now, if you're next reaction is to say something like "okay, but .265/.345/.419 isn't that much better than the career numbers, and it still isn't good for a 3B" then...we are in total agreement. But there's another interesting thing going on with Gordon right now, namely his RHP-LHP splits.

• Alex Gordon 2008 vs. RHP: .294/.370/.505
• Alex Gordon 2008 vs. LHP: .195/.286/.218
• Alex Gordon Career vs. RHP: .270/.344/.440
• Alex Gordon Career vs. LHP: .209/.274/.343

That 2008 vs. RHP line is a lot closer towards what everyone wants, isn't it? Noting that Gordon's overall line has been unimpressive in the majors is fine, because unlike derisions of his plate discipline, it's true. However, it makes sense to parse the splits, especially in the case of a young player. It is far too early in Gordon's career to label him a player who can't hit lefties at all, as that career vs. lefties sample is in 200-something PAs (barely a third of one season's worth). Nonetheless, it has be pointed out that Gordon is killing right-handed pitching this year, while he turns into Freddie Bynum against left-handers. Is this necessarily better than him OPSing 730 vs. righties and lefties, you ask? To my way of thinking, yes. It's not all that uncommon for a young left-handed hitter to struggle against same-sided pitching and then find his feet against them with experience. Maybe Gordon will never be a lefty-masher, but if he can keep up his current vs. RHP clubbing and combine that with, say, a .250 BA against LHPs--hardly an unrealistic goal--his overall line will give us a lot less to complain about. It's not as if Gordon came up with some major caveat such as "this kid is awesome, but he can't touch lefties." The talent is there, the plate discipline is coming, and an improvement versus lefties would vault Gordon up into triple-slash numbers where he would be a plus for his position.

If there's anything we should be getting on Alex for in particular, it's his weak hitting versus left-handers and the fact he's not exactly thrilling defensively overall, despite several gold glove plays this year. Alex Gordon is not a superstar, or a lost cause. I think we all know that a player can be quite good while falling somewhere in-between these extremes.

This morning, over oatmeal and blueberry pancakes, Royals Review breakfasted with longtime blogger Royals Review at the Royals Review Midwestern-Eastern Headquarters on South Bass Island in Lake Erie.

The last time we did this the 2007 season was just getting started. What has changed since then?

Interesting question. My sense is you should have saved this one for last, since it really gets to the heart of much of my angst at the moment. Since the start of that season, some nice things have happened, specifically with the pitching staff. We've discovered that Joakim Soria and Brian Bannister can be significant contributors, we've seen Zack Greinke not only return to baseball, but become an above-average pitcher and, although it is early I suppose, we've seen Dayton Moore show some good skill in putting together bullpens. Oh, and the Meche signing turned out OK, although I really don't enjoy actually watching Meche pitch. So there has been some positive development, and beneath the surface the minor league system is slowly getting better. On the other hand, I didn't really like Ross Gload and Joey Gathright fourteen months ago, and through all the ups and downs, I still don't. I didn't think Tony Pena Jr. was very good then, and I don't now. Worse, I'm probably less excited about David DeJesus and Mark Teahen and John Buck than I was then. Alex Gordon is still decidedly not setting the league afire, and Billy Butler didn't either.

So overall...

So overall, it feels like we've hit another lull. If you think of getting to the playoffs as a cross-country drive -- let's say New York to Los Angeles -- then really all that's happened is that we think we have a car that will make it. Currently, we're still somewhere in Pennslyvania. Eastern Pennslyvania.

How far is this car going to make it?

I would say not past the boundaries of the Royals Radio Network. I think we die in the Rockies.

Why don't you trust Dayton Moore?

Why should I? I'm not trying to be difficult. I just...

You already mentioned the Bannister trade, and the snagging of Soria, and the Meche deal. And look at how well Miguel Olivo is doing, and Ramon Ramirez and on and on.

Yes, we now have two #3 starters, a three-innings a week closer, and a good option at catcher.

You do understand how bad the Royals were when he took over?

No, I just blogged about them for three years without noticing that. To go back the main point -- whether or not I trust Dayton Moore -- let's simply ask ourselves "why?" Why should I trust him, or to put it less creepily, why should I trust him to get the Royals into the post-season? Here's the information that I have to work with: a) "baseball people" love him, in this category we can include somewhat useful nuggets like the dalliance with the Red Sox (positive) and the anonymous quotes in Jayon Stark articles (not so much) then we have b) a handful of good moves he's made. That's it. For the Royals to reach the playoffs, he doesn't just have to be a good GM, he has to be a great one. And I just don't see how anyone can truly say that is a certain thing. As a fan, you have to have a certain amount of trust and I think your life is easier if you have in the back of your head that you've got a smart guy running things, but how can we say that now?

Well, would you rather have Allard back?

No, but that isn't the issue. In the last few days, I've started to think about this in a different way... maybe from a more psychological perspective. Think about it this way, lets say you have wanted to be a wedding planner for years. Years. You've worked in the industry, you've served as an assistant and you've been around weddings for a long time. But you've never been the guy. Then, you get hired to handle a major wedding. Major.

Yes...

So those first few decisions you make are probably going to be inspired, even brilliant. Years ago you discovered this cool little florist no one knew about, and you discovered this way of folding invitations that no one else was doing and you met a wonderful flower girl at another wedding, and within a week, you've made all those moves. The wedding industry is impressed and your clients are giddy. The only problem is, you're now out of ideas, and the material you have to work with, in this case, your clients and their preferences, are actually really really lame. Everyone still loves the paper fold you suggested, but now you're starting to get push-back from the familes about what you've setup as the dinner at the reception. Eager and confident, maybe over-confident, you've set the menu as lamb and goose. You keep explaining to people that this is very traditional, but...

I don't quite follow.

My point is, Dayton's first few moves were bound to be brilliant. They were probably the result of years of dreaming and observation. Who knows when he first noticed something about Brian Bannister or when he first made a little mental note about Soria. It's like why so many first albums and first novels are so much better than the next one, because the band spent ten years making the first album and ten months making the second. The bad thing, and what I think gets overlooked, is that Dayton's first flurry of moves also had some major misses: TPJ, Joey Gathright, extending Gload, extending Grudz, etc. There's also been a predictable reluctance to admit that some moves haven't worked, or even, more frighteningly, a blindness to failures. As in the Pena situation.

Where do you put Hillman in this wedding analogy?

Oh, he's the lamb and goose at the reception, or at least part of that.

That bad?

Well, lamb and goose, as long as there are some good sides and an open bar, might actually be kinda fun. It's certainly different, at least superficially. On the other hand, goose isn't much different from chicken, and lamb, isn't much different from beef. I am not a fan of Hillman, no. But honestly, he's just a guy. The baserunning silliness looks like it's slowing down, which is good, but the bullpen management remains uninspiring. As I wrote at the time of the hiring, the important thing is not so much what Hillman does in-game, but rather, what his philosophy reflects about what Dayton thinks is important, or what Dayton wants. Playing Whiteyball with this roster is stupid, but its even stupider if Dayton decides that what he needs to do is reshape the roster to fit Hillman's wishes.

You don't want Whiteyball?

No. Not unless the K goes back to artificial turf, along with half the other ballparks. Here's the thing: everyone gets a little silly about this stuff. Show me a team that supposedly won because of being small-ball-tastic and great on the basepaths and I'll show you a team that had a Top 5 pitching staff. It's really that simple. But for some reason there's this impulse to over-value the offensive side of the equation with those teams, even though that isn't how they are winning. It also works in reverse: since I live in Cleveland now, I just finished watching a four game set between the Tigers and Tribe. I couldn't tell you how many times I heard the Cleveland TV and radio guys go on about how bad the Tiger offense has been and how inconsistent and stationary they are. Here's the thing: the Tigers are losing because their pitching has collapsed. It isn't even really complicated, but extreme power lineups always operate on a short-leash with the baseball media.

I wanted to ask you about another player that you somewhat dismissed before. David DeJesus is hitting .296/.352/.429, why aren't you excited about him anymore?

Because he has already done that. He was a tick better in 2006 (.295/.364/.446). David is a tough guy for me to appreciate at this point, even though two years ago I really loved his game. It's hard coming to the realization that people are who they are and that they won't be getting better. But you're right, he's nicely bounced back. Which is more than can be said for Teahen, who's a similar case.

Do you have a favorite Royal?

No, not really. I don't think you really follow the game that way when you are an adult. I do have guys that I kinda have an extra-non-fandom of, but I still root for them because they are Royals. I like Jimmy Gobble because he's been around for so long and because I can remember writing about him on my first blog, back in 2004. I like Soria because he's awesome.

What about Alex Gordon?

Would it be impolite to say I'm disappointed? In over 800 big league PAs he's a .253/.322/.408 hitter. He is 24 years old, so he's right on the hinge between still being young and being in his prime. Look at his comparables on his baseball-reference page and tell me how I should feel. Whatever it is that we expected he'd be... we may have to give up those dreams. Fortunately, this is an experience that most of us should be familiar with.

What is one move you would make, or that, you wish Dayton would make?

I get asked that a lot, often as a kind of rebuke to my criticisms, but I don't really think it matters what I think. You should ask Jim Hendry that question. The Royals aren't one-move away, they're 20 moves away.

How do you feel about this season so far?

The Royals are 25-40 and have the second worst record in baseball now, which wasn't what I expected. I don't think anyone is happy about whats happened in the last month and a half. The question is: what is the relevant information before us?

What do you mean?

First, is the record relevant? Now most of us predicted -- myself included -- that the Royals would be something like an 78-80 win team. There was actually a frightening consensus about this, at least among Royals people. Well... it doesn't look like that is going to happen. If people viewed this season as an incremental step towards contention, I'd have to say, so far, that looks wrong. There's one line of thought that argues that you have to be a 80 win team before you can be a 90 win team, and if the Royals haven't even reached that level yet, then we're still very far from anything interesting. If the Royals end up winning 70 games instead of 80, we'll have to decide how meaningful that is, which in many ways goes to the second point. Namely, the players. Now you could say, look at the Rays, they seem to have skipped the 78 win step and could easily be a contender deep into the season and for years to come. What worries me, and has worried me since last season, is that the Royals are not overflowing with guys who figure to get much better. I don't think Banny is getting better. I don't think Meche is getting better. I don't think Buck/Teahen/Gload/DeJesus/Gathright/Guillen/Olivo are getting better. So that leaves us waiting on Gordon and Butler and a few pitchers to be named later to carry the Royals to contention in 2009 and 2010. I don't know if that can happen.

So was this your expectation?

It depends on how closely you focus the microscope. Individually, obviously the expectations are all over the place, and those change constantly anyway. Guillen was a disappointment in April, a hero in June, etc. I am more disappointed in the offense more than anything else, which I thought would be mediocre. The pitching is mediocre, despite an early tease that it would be incredible. It isn't and it hasn't been since tax day. We're slowly morphing back into the same old Royals, a team that truly has no strength.

Do you think the Royals can compete in 2009?

They should be competing now! A .500 team would be in... I'm not going to look this up... second-place in this division? But no, I don't know about 2009. Then again, the division has taken such a bizarre turn with Detroit and Cleveland faltering, it's hard to say. One of the things you have to fight against is an expectation that every team follows an inevitable arch to contention. Lots of teams don't. They just stay bad for years and years. They cycle through players, have a few youth movements, get slightly better, then fall back again. I always point to the late-90s Twins, who got all the way back to just short of .500, then collapsed again and had to completely start over. There first attempt at building through the system wasn't good enough, and by the time the won the division again (when it was much much weaker, I should add) basically Brade Radke was the only guy who was still around.

I have a user-submitted question about makes you more upset, Justin Huber or Jenna Fischer's ex-husband?

Both had happy endings. In a way, Huber's sojourn to San Diego has been a blessing, I get to follow Padres games now.

So many of your responses seem to be negative. Did I pick a bad time to interview you?

Maybe, considering last night's disaster. You have to remember though, I am probably a very negative and pessimistic person. That's really just my temperament with most things I 'd say.

How is Royals Review going?

Do you mean you? Or me personally? Or the website?

Umm... the website I guess. Royals Review is a greybeard now.

It's never been better. That being said, this could be a contentious summer if the team keeps playing poorly. It's pretty amazing, and terrifying, to think that RR celebrated its third birthday this May, not that I celebrated or anything. Most blogs die just because people realize no one is reading them, which can be very painful, not because it's an inherently challenging thing to do. The site pretty much runs itself now, thanks to the size and strength of the community. I hated the new site layout and design at first, but have come to love it, which is predictable I guess. And beyond that, you always want to write more and better, or wish that you had. That stays constant.

Do you think the auto-interview went well?

That I cannot say. Thank you for having me.

Thank you.

The Royals finished April with a 12-15 record and ended the fifth month of the year with a 22-34 mark (now 23-34). Considering the month contained the team's epic losing streak, an overall record of 10-19 in May wasn't a total disaster, and could have been much worse.

Let's take a look at how the boys in blue did at the plate in May. First, the team totals:

101 runs is actually not last in the league, it's tied for 11th. The Angels also scored 101 (in one fewer game) and the Mariners and Indians were worse, scoring 99 and 98 runs respectively, as the new deadball era sweeps across the American League. Despite the advantage of the DH, scoring in the American League is lower than in the NL, which of course can 100% be attributed to PEDs testing. 100%. Everyone who used PEDs was a hitter in the AL. Moving on... The Royals only hit 12 homers in May, which is remarkable. Not surprisingly, no team in the AL was anywhere close to this number, as the league average was 24 homers.It isn't anything like a full consolation, but the Royals did rip 65 doubles in May, second-most in the American League. Weirdly, the Royals continue to not hit triples, despite having some decent triplers getting regular playing time. They hit just 2 in May. Then again, no one ever got poor betting against Joey Gathright's extra base hit totals.

Speaking of Gathright, now about those individual numbers, sorted by OPS:

This is how you have a bad month. For a guy who probably won't be in the Major Leagues in 2010, Tony Pena Jr. has generated a ton of discussion this month, but he isn't standing alone in the forest of horribleness. Considering defensive value and where they play, it's certain that Ross Gload (another Dayton pickup) was the worse player in May, and Alberto Callaspo wasn't far behind. You can say the same for Billy Butler, who slugged .302 with no value on defense.

Other than Miguel Olivo's studliness and a decent month from Jose Guillen (characteristically a lack of walks drags down his performance, even when he's hitting over .300) nobody else stepped into the void. Although Gordon (and Teahen) continued to get his walks and John Buck tossed in his annual random month of hitting .300, there isn't much good displayed here. (Expect a .210 average from Buck in June.)

Pitching numbers will be up tomorrow.

Last night was apparently one hell of a game to miss. I remember, while watching the Celtics-Pistons post-game, seeing the final score on the ESPN Bottomline and saying something to the effect of "that stinks." It looked like it had turned out to be a close slugfest, one that, given it went into extra innings, could have gone either way. It was only when "KC Greinke - 8.1 IP, 3 ER" scrolled across the bottom of the screen that I began to suspect that it had been a painful loss, and even then I really didn't know until I checked the box score this morning. ESPN, as everyone here knows, would prefer to show the Red Sox failing to hit Erik Bedard all night than show Twins-Royals highlights. However, I think that might be a good thing in this particular case. Anyhow, the "earned run" tag meant I had no idea exactly how much the Royals had been leading by going into the ninth. Of course, that Greinke was still in the game indicated that they had been leading, and so my first thought was that Soria had actually had a bit of a meltdown.

Of course, that's not the way it went. You all know as well as I know what happened in the ninth inning last night, with Ramon Ramirez getting singled out of the game and giving way to the now-thoroughly dejected Joel Peralta.

One thing that would not change this night, though, was the despair felt by Peralta -- not for himself, he said, but because he let his teammates down.

"I won't sleep tonight, for sure," he said.

Yes, that definitely sound like a pitcher who gave two home runs in the span of three betters to heavily contribute to what I have little doubt will be the Royals most memorable loss of the year. I should make it clear I'm not attempting to get everyone blaming manager Trey Hillman rather than Peralta by evoking pathos, as I find it hard to blame Hillman for Peralta not being able to get Craig Monroe out. Really, with Nunez now hurting, and with Soria having pitched two games in a row, the decision last night came down to Mahay, Peralta, Yabuta, or keeping Ramon Ramirez in the game. Ramirez wasn't pitching well, so it's easy to see why Hillman turned elsewhere. Yabuta has a 6.00 ERA with no good peripherals. Craig Monroe historically hits lefties better than righties, to the tune of more power and a better OBP. Ron Mahay is left-handed, so assuming Soria wasn't ready to go, Peralta was left as the best choice for a high leverage situation. He blew it, he knows, let's move on.

We've already discussed this game at length, anyway. I'm just pointing this out because I've been critical of Trey, and others here have been a lot more critical of our fearless leader, but I don't think he takes the fall for the ninth inning. You can, as loyal2sdad pointed out, make an argument that Hillman should have just pitched either Peralta or Ramirez through the whole inning. You can also wonder why Greinke was allowed to start the inning with such a high pitch count and a 5-run lead. But either way, it's speculation that really isn't an indictment of the moves that were really made. If we all want something to complain about in regard to Hillman, it's much more debatable whether Peralta should have remained in to pitch to Justin Morneau with Mahay on the roster. Or the Gload in the outfield thing.

But I didn't write this whole thing to bury Hillman anyway. I didn't write to praise him either, because this entire team is in a funk that you usually only see once a year. If you want the bare bones consolation, we will probably go the entire year without the Royals ever playing this badly for this long. Feel better? Yeah, me neither. Maybe I'll just shut up about last night and get to the stuff I really wanted to touch on.

Notes on the Red Sox-Royals Series

Thanks to the heroic intervention of the MLB Extra Innings package, very soon I'll have the opportunity to follow more KC games without having to enlist the highlight reels and gameday. However, the four game set between the Red Sox and the Royals allowed me for the first time this year to actually see more than one Royals game in a row. It was pretty cool despite the obviously disappointing results. And yes, they were disappointing. Those of you who have been on this blog for awhile are well aware of my "split loyalties," but I was really hoping that the series would be a split so both "my teams" could have their moments. Well, I suppose I don't feel that bad that the Red Sox kind of beat up the Royals now that the Royals are getting beat up by everyone, if that makes sense to anyone. Anyhow, I have other places to go in this article, so onto the stuff that I jotted down during the series:

1. The improvements that Alex Gordon has made over last year were evident through the entire series, during which he was one of the few Royals offensive players who distinguished themselves. He looked more patient, more comfortable, and more disciplined than when I got to see him play last year.
2. Gil Meche looked as if he was starting to get turned around, K'ing 9 over seven innings and taking the hard luck loss in the second game of the series. Say what you will about the opposing points of view in the field of pitch count general pitcher workload research, but I think that poor Meche was suffering from a 200-inning, high-pitch count hangover that seems to finally be clearing up. It's like that time where I drank Ice 101 during finals week and didn't begin to function until approximately 2 PM the next morning. My god, that stuff is evil. Thanks to my friend Buddy, who recommended taking more shots of it than were necessary.
3. Joakim Soria - great man, or greatest man? Even though Soria only appeared in one game...and stuggled with his control...in the rain, I could still see the awesome stuff that he has. I was sitting next to a rather skeptical Red Sox fan during his outing, who made fun of me for saying that Soria had great control because Joakim walked two people in the rain. I had a good chuckle when Soria escaped the jam and then Mike Timlin struggled with his control and walked one in the rain on his way to creating his own save situation in the ninth. Funny stuff.
4. Contrary to whenever I saw him in the "highlights" earlier in the year, Jose Guillen had his timing down and more closely resembled the decent power hitter he's been in the past. You know this, but the difference was clearly visible.
5. Brett Tomko is not a victim of bad luck when it comes to his hittablility. After seeing his stuff, I don't think he's got enough to keep his BABIP at league average. I just bring this up because, other than his H/9, he looks like he is underperforming his peripheral numbers. After seeing how mediocre his stuff is, I don't think he's playing by the "normal" .290-.300 BABIP rule.
6. Billy Butler is sitting too far back in his stance, and almost never seems to get his weight forward into his swings. I know I'm not a scout, but it's odd to see a man that muscular trying to fight off pitch after pitch. In any case, he's a data point against the pitching coach. He looked completely lost in the Sox-Royals series.
7. Ross Gload is done. He doesn't look capable of hitting major league pitching. His numbers are terrible, and he's older than you think.
8. Leo Nunez and Ramon Ramirez both looked impressive in their outings. It's hard to believe that Nunez has come full circle and become a very good reliever, but he has. Ramirez looks like a good find, as if you look at his line in 2006 he was quite good before getting hurt last year.

Continue reading this post »

Well, at least the Royals forced Sir Sidney out of the game by the ninth inning. In a way, I'm glad we gave the old Aruban one last nice start before he fades back into horribleness. We can file it next to our DVD of Livan Hernandez's similarly dominating performance of a supposedly up-and-coming lineup. It was a special day, to be sure. We'll all remember these special moments, moments that only a true artiste like W.C. Heinz or Buzz Bissinger can truly capture.

I don't know what's more damning, that Hillman has randomly moved DeJesus into the third spot, behind Gathright and Grudz, or that the KC lineup is so impotent that putting a player who has never hit double-digit homers at #3 is still an improvement on many other options. The consistent yanking around of Gordon is just stupid. Oh, he's the seven-hitter now. Why? Because he had two bad games? It's not the reason the Royals won or lost, but it is nevertheless reflective of a dumb thought-process. Roughly akin to, say, rearranging your living room furniture because you disliked an episode of Lost. Well, we've got to shake things up, don't we? Or get him comfortable, or whatever it is this week.

Don't look now, but our "surprising Royals" are back in familiar territory:

As Sam Mellinger said today on Ball Star , there's plenty of blame to go around, but it's especially the lack of run production that's dragging the team down. Sure, contributing to the streak has been a fair amount of bad luck, like how the last few offensive nights of competence have coincided with bad nights from the pitching staff, but honestly, going 2-5 over this last week instead of 0-7 wouldn't make much of a difference, other than leaving the Royals at 11-11 and over .500 for another few days.

We're only at loss number seven, but I'm already running out of things to say, from throwing out numbers to talking about fan/managerial cliches to trying to suggest how silly managerial veneration is.

The horror:

Barry is not walking through that door, and if he does, I'll eat my hat tomorrow at RR Fest. Not only does he seem like an odd fit for a supposedly young, not-quite-there yet Royals team, he's also, at least in term's of perception, not a Dayton Moore type and could potentially cause a fan/media meltdown where ever he goes. (Not that I think this reaction would be justified, or that Barry's baggage is actually his own baggage.  No, the party that "has baggage" in this case is the aggrieved media. Barry is by all accounts a loner and a sulking jerk, but not someone who seems that disruptive.) That being said, Dayton's surprised us before, and some smart GM could sign Bonds, showcase him for a month, have their team bear the brunt of the initial media crush, then trade him. It might happen, I just don't think the Royals will be the one's doing it.

The bigger problem is that the Royals have found that anti-sweet spot of roster design. The offense is currently terrible, and doesn't project to being much more than average, ever. The anti-sweet spot is that the lineup is also filled with guys that the team likes, guys like Ross Gload and David DeJesus and Mark Teahen and John Buck, who aren't terrible players, and who have some skill, but who, ultimately, aren't pushing the team towards 800 runs either. With Butler and Gordon likely still a year away from truly breaking out, your left with a lineup without any elite production and just a group of OK guys. This could potentially create a terrible problem down the line, because aside from shortstop, I'm not even sure where the Royals should upgrade. Step one is getting to mediocrity, but now the Royals will need to replace two of the mediocre guys with actually good players, and I'm not sure how that's going to be done. Incidentally, this is precisely what they were trying to do with the Emil Brown/Jose Guillen swap. But unfortunately, Jose Guillen is exactly in this same class of player, maybe only slightly above.  The Royals have a bland lineup filled  with guys they like, which is a sticky situation.

OK, I'm heading out the door. Preparing to drive to KC for RR Fest. I hope to meet a few of y'all on Saturday in the K's East Lot, or up in section 304.

Two batting-order bullets:

- Alex Gordon (.317/.371/.488), essentially the only guy really hitting the ball with any authority, continues to hit 6th for no real reason. Last night, in the first game, Hillman put him 5th, which still seemed silly, but maybe a step in the right direction. Nope, in the second game he was back at 6th. Now, from both old-school and new-school perspectives, this shouldn't be a big deal, namely, either Gordon is comfortable in that slot, and you wouldn't want to throw him off and overall lineup order doesn't matter much anyway. This is all fine and good, but go back to the 9th inning of the second game last night. What happens if Esteban German gets a hit, putting the tying run on-base? Unfortunately, three more dudes have to not make outs before Gordon hits.

- In that same vein, Mark Teahen (Mark Quinn Award nominee) has not budged from the 3-hole, since randomly replacing Gordon there for the fourth game. Just as the selection of a manager is mostly important because it gives us insight into how the General Manager thinks, the lineup card is mostly useful as a demonstration of what the field Manager expects and envisions. I like Teahen, and there's a case to be made that the Royals are doing the right thing by being patient. It would certainly be worse if they had him hitting 8th or something. Still, its striking that Hillman can't see what seems obvious to this underwear typing idiot blogger, Mark Teahen is a classic #2 hitter. Basically, his entire game at this point is being a good OBP guy.

The Royals are 3-0. Deal with it, America.

And no, this isn't the second time in twenty eight years thats happened -- as was reported on Baseball Tonight, last night, about 2-0 -- it's the second time in five years actually.

Someone call Desi Relaford, Ken Harvey and Michael Tucker.

Continue reading this post »