Saturday, April 23, 2005


Both of my favorite teams, the San Francisco Giants and the Kansas City Royals, suffer from an utter lack of ability to score runs, a shaky bullpen, and inconsistent starting pitching. Giants lose 6 to 1 to the Milwaukee Brewers, the Royals lose 8 to 2 to the Chicago White Sox on Friday night.

I'm sure this means something, but I don't know what it is. I do know, however, that it makes for some frustrating baseball to watch/listen to, and I wish that the respective managers/GM's of these two teams are thinking of some way to solve it. It's looking to be a long season to be a fan of these two teams.

Points of similar frustration:

  • The Giants allowed 8 walks, the Brewers none. The Royals allowed 7 walks, the White Sox one.
  • The Giants offense could only collect 5 hits, with one of them coming via the unlikely source of Kirk Rueter. The Royals, with the help of the DH, put together 4 hits.
  • Both Rueter and Runelvys Hernandez battled trying to keep their team in the game, but through six full innings of play each starter's respective team had scored one run in support of their starter's efforts. Abyssmal.
  • The Giants actually hit for power, with 4 of their 5 hits being for extra bases (3 doubles, 1 triple). But it goes to show you how important walks can be, because after not drawing a single walk in the game, the Giants had nobody to drive in with those extra base hits. The Giants lone run was scored on a ground out.
  • Ditto the Royals, with their two runs being scored on a sacrifice fly and a ground out, respectively. So both teams weren't driving anyone in, per se.
  • The Giants have been held to three (3) runs or less 6 times in their 16 games, while the Royals have pulled this dubious feat off 10 of their 17 games. Sounds like a bit of a difference, until one sees that the Royals did not have the Colorado Rockies on their schedule.
  • Both teams just happen to have the teams with the best record in their leagues in the same division as they are, with the Giants having the Los Angeles Dodgers winning at a .750 clip in the NL West, and the Royals having the White Sox winning at a .765 pace.

Being honest, Allard Baird, GM of the Royals, probably isn't looking to do anything drastic to change the direction his team is facing -- the Royals poor start should have been generally expected, and Baird really doesn't have any players within reach to help his team in any significant way.

Brian Sabean, on the other hand, does have some reinforcements on the way...or, perhaps he doesn't. When the heck is Barry Bonds due to start swinging a bat again? In any case, with attendance already down quite a bit, unless he knows something the rest of us don't, Sabean needs to be working the phones to try and get some offensive help. Sure, Moises Alou is back, but does anyone really have the feeling that this will change anything significantly? None of us have yet to see M. Alou do anything positive in a Giants uniform, and as I stated on Thursday, the players the Giants have had in right field, Michael Tucker and Jason Ellison, have done well enough with the bat to this point that Alou would have to hit the cover off of the ball to add any offense to the right field position.

Somebody give me a pep talk or Pepto. I may need both.


Anonymous said...

The Chron stories today said Bonds showed up on crutches with wraps on a swollen knee, which didn't sound good to me, and apparently bothered everybody on the Giants...

You forgot one big difference between the Giants and KC- the payroll. Hence my complaining about the Alou and Matheny contracts. We could have cheap KC kids and be hitting just as lousy, with money to burn on a real (ie non-retired) player.

Keep writing man, despite the seeming futility of it all...


Daniel said...

Thanks, BB.

The difference in payroll is something I try not to point out too much (seems like a cop-out for the Royals). However, it seems like my little gripe a couple of months ago could have had something to it after all.

I wanted the Giants to re-sign Dustin Hermanson and give him the closer's role, crazy as that would've been -- but then, I wanted them to use the extra millions to bridge the gap between Alou's salary and J.D. Drew's, and Vizquel's salary and Nomar Garciaparra's...or, heck, they could've platooned Grissom and Tucker in rf, found somebody to platoon at SS with Deivi Cruz, and signed the heck out of Carlos Beltran, if they wanted. The amount of money for those moves was there (and the Giants would've had a brighter post-Bonds future, too).

Of course, those signings would have been just as risky injury-wise as keeping a roster full of guy's in their late 30's has been, but the offense would've been a lot better, and though the bullpen would've been worse overall, Benitez has had his early season troubles.

Hermanson? He's putting up these numbers in his set-up role with the White Sox: 7.2 innings pitched, .91 WHIP, 1 bb vs. 7 so, .222 BAA, and a 0.00 ERA with 4 holds and 2 saves.

I'm going to keep track of that, because Hermanson is pitching in the most homer-friendly park in the majors for about half his games in Cellular One ballpark in Chicago. All it would've taken was 2 million bucks...

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad I came across your blog. My two favorite teams also happen to be the Giants and the Royals. I go to school in KC and live in Omaha, NE. How about KC sending down Pickering? I'm not too pumped about the decision, but the Royals are desperate for offensive production. Matt Diaz may bring some, we'll see. I also think the payroll issue is a cop out for KC. As you know, the roys haven't been in the playoffs since their world series victory in '85. You'd think by now they'd figure out how to put a respectable team on the field (even being a small market club). As for the g men, I wish their offense would back up pretty good performances by their starters. I thought they might have a chance with Perez not being in the line up, but not so.
Anyway, I enjoy reading your blog. It's perfect for me. Keep up the good writing.


Daniel said...

Welcome aboard, Adam. I'm as glad you found me as as you are glad you found me...and all that.

As for the Royals, sending down Pickering was necessary from a PR perspective, but silly from a rational perspective. He's had 27 at-bats broken up by his wife's difficult delivery of his (?first?) child. The strikeouts are ridiculously discouraging (14 of the 27 ab's), but if they think they can evaluate someone from such a small sample, they're nuts.

We'll see what Diaz does, but of course I thought Diaz should've stayed up instead of Emil Brown, regardless of Brown's hot spring.

Take care.