So, it's late August and, of course, the Royals are legitimately out of playoff contention. But this time of year always brings false hope to us True Blue faithful. While they haven't made the playoffs in 25 years, they always seem to put together an exciting winning streak this time of year to sucker us in for another season, sell some season ticket packages and make promises about "promising" young players.
Here's what happened this last week:
- Defeated the defending champion Yankees 1-0 on Sunday with former No. 1 pick Brian Bullington pitching eight innings (facing the minimum) and some help from a couple Yankee errors.
- Took 2 of 3 from the struggling Indians (having one of those "we really are a small-market team, aren't we?" seasons)
- Took 2 of 3 from the contending White Sox... which after a rain-out on Friday meant 3 games in two days and because of ridiculous scheduling and some extra innings meant 31 innings in 22 hours.
Okay, so what? The Yankees weren't being patient at the plate, the Indians don't have pitching, and the White Sox are self-destructing. No big deal. Most baseball fans don't get over excited about a 5-2 streak, especially this 5-2 streak that included one win by more than 1 run.
But that's just it. The Royals don't win 1-0 games... they don't win any 1-run games, especially extra-inning games. But when they pulled that 3-6-1 double play and then threw out Cervelli stealing against the Yankees, or when Betancourt hit the grand slam then drove in the winner in Game 1 Saturday, I get sucked in. I never constantly check the score, but on Saturday at the bar I was on the wife's phone refreshing the box score every 10 seconds (because the bar sucks and wouldn't put the game on... but little league softball was okay).
In 2003, The Sporting News ran a cover story "It's August. Do you know where the Royals are? That's right. First place." The quirky team that started 9-0 and 16-3, led the division for 107 days (by 7 games at one point), then faded in late September and finish 7 games out of the playoffs.
It was really rough on me because I was working at the Columbia Missourian and often found myself finishing articles late, while they put the sports section together, monitoring every Royals score like a pregnancy test. Turned out, an easy April-May stretch and a few contract-year performances led to the lead. Then they ran into the Angels, White Sox, Twins, and Yankees down the stretch. They went 13-16 when it mattered (the Twins and White Sox caught them with 29 games left and for a couple weeks they were within 2 games of each other).
I am by no means suggesting that the decent week for the Royals will lead to a playoff run. I'm just trying to show you what they can do to their fans.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Kansas City vs. St. Louis
Time to attempt to answer the most debated topic in central Missouri: Which is the better city, KC or STL?
This argument may not be relevant in many places, but when you've spent 10 years interacting with people your age who tend to have a strong opinion on the subject, you start weighing the arguments. It's time to put this to bed... or at least tell it to go to time-out.
(Note I realize I'm technically biased in this debate, but not as much as you'd think.)
Place to Live
There are several factors that go into which city is a better place to live, and if you factor in the surrounding suburban areas, there is even more to consider.
Crime Statistics: Comparing crime rates, STL rates a 10 in both violent and property crimes, whereas KC is a 7 and 6 respectively. Independence is one of the only suburbs with a higher than normal rate (7/9), but if we compare the cities on the other side of the state line, East STL is an 10/9 but KCKS is a 7/8. So the nod goes to KC on this one.
Housing Cost: Recent reports have average single-family home prices in STL slightly lower than in KC... edge to STL.
Cost of Living: According to a CNN Money calculation, someone making $25k in KC would comparably make $23k in STL, and only groceries and health care cost more in STL... edge to STL.
Education: Yea, KCMO school district is not currently accredited. Fortunately, the suburbs have solid schools. STL is well known for it's private schools, so this one kinda depends on the type of education. SchoolDigger.com ranks KC schools slightly higher, so they get this one... barely.
Entertainment
This attempts to answer the question of which city can you have the most fun in? There is no real answer to this, but let's take a few factors into consideration.
Amusement Parks: I hear good things about Six Flags and I get the impression it's more fun for all ages. Plus the STL zoo blows the KC zoo out of the water... edge to STL.
Culture: The Science Center versus The Nelson Art Museum... edge KC. The Fox Theater versus the Tivoli Theater... edge STL. Riverport versus Sandstone... edge KC. The Arch versus Liberty Memorial... edge STL. Budweiser brewery versus Boulevard brewery... edge STL. When it's all factored together, and including KC's history as a jazz hotbed, the edge goes to KC.
Food: I've sampled some of the STL Italian food, and it is very good. But I'm going to have to lean on my bias just once... KC barbeque is the best. KC even has enough great Italian places to trump the good STL barbeque... edge to KC.
Sports Teams: Almost laughable. STL leads the city championships 11-2. While the Rams are newish to town, the Cardinals have been playing for over 110 years and the Blues have been around. KC didn't have a professional team until the '60s, the Athletics were bad, the Royals got off to a slow start and are no wmuch worse, the Scouts (NHL) had 2 years of ineptitude, and the Kings struggled. Accept for the Chiefs' early success, not much to talk about other than the '85 Series... despite the result in head-to-head championships, edge to STL.
Beauty
I've never really thought about KC as a beautiful place, and of course, it depends on what part of the city you are in. STL has the nicest park and it's highway system is better (and makes more sense), but the scary parts of KC are harder to find.... edge STL.
Final Verdict
I need more information/experience, but I'll lean slightly toward STL. I still like KC better, but this can be an open debate... let the flood of comments begin.
This argument may not be relevant in many places, but when you've spent 10 years interacting with people your age who tend to have a strong opinion on the subject, you start weighing the arguments. It's time to put this to bed... or at least tell it to go to time-out.
(Note I realize I'm technically biased in this debate, but not as much as you'd think.)
Place to Live
There are several factors that go into which city is a better place to live, and if you factor in the surrounding suburban areas, there is even more to consider.
Crime Statistics: Comparing crime rates, STL rates a 10 in both violent and property crimes, whereas KC is a 7 and 6 respectively. Independence is one of the only suburbs with a higher than normal rate (7/9), but if we compare the cities on the other side of the state line, East STL is an 10/9 but KCKS is a 7/8. So the nod goes to KC on this one.
Housing Cost: Recent reports have average single-family home prices in STL slightly lower than in KC... edge to STL.
Cost of Living: According to a CNN Money calculation, someone making $25k in KC would comparably make $23k in STL, and only groceries and health care cost more in STL... edge to STL.
Education: Yea, KCMO school district is not currently accredited. Fortunately, the suburbs have solid schools. STL is well known for it's private schools, so this one kinda depends on the type of education. SchoolDigger.com ranks KC schools slightly higher, so they get this one... barely.
Entertainment
This attempts to answer the question of which city can you have the most fun in? There is no real answer to this, but let's take a few factors into consideration.
Amusement Parks: I hear good things about Six Flags and I get the impression it's more fun for all ages. Plus the STL zoo blows the KC zoo out of the water... edge to STL.
Culture: The Science Center versus The Nelson Art Museum... edge KC. The Fox Theater versus the Tivoli Theater... edge STL. Riverport versus Sandstone... edge KC. The Arch versus Liberty Memorial... edge STL. Budweiser brewery versus Boulevard brewery... edge STL. When it's all factored together, and including KC's history as a jazz hotbed, the edge goes to KC.
Food: I've sampled some of the STL Italian food, and it is very good. But I'm going to have to lean on my bias just once... KC barbeque is the best. KC even has enough great Italian places to trump the good STL barbeque... edge to KC.
Sports Teams: Almost laughable. STL leads the city championships 11-2. While the Rams are newish to town, the Cardinals have been playing for over 110 years and the Blues have been around. KC didn't have a professional team until the '60s, the Athletics were bad, the Royals got off to a slow start and are no wmuch worse, the Scouts (NHL) had 2 years of ineptitude, and the Kings struggled. Accept for the Chiefs' early success, not much to talk about other than the '85 Series... despite the result in head-to-head championships, edge to STL.
Beauty
I've never really thought about KC as a beautiful place, and of course, it depends on what part of the city you are in. STL has the nicest park and it's highway system is better (and makes more sense), but the scary parts of KC are harder to find.... edge STL.
Final Verdict
I need more information/experience, but I'll lean slightly toward STL. I still like KC better, but this can be an open debate... let the flood of comments begin.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Draw of Fantasy
So, I've been spending some time (maybe too much) lately on prepping for the upcoming Fantasy Football season. For the second year in row, I'm running a league on ESPN with a bunch of my friends. It's affectionately known as the IWWL (Idiots With Whiskey League). More importantly, I'm in a league on CBS with what I think are high school kids in Kansas City. If you've never done fantasy sports before, here's a warning: participating in more than one league at a time may cause health problems... both mental and physical.
Here's the thing about fantasy sports, it's either addictive or annoying, but not in between. With real sports, you can be a casual fan... checking scores occasionally, cheering when good things happen, shrugging off losses, ignoring it when things get busy elsewhere in your life. But casual sports fans don't like fantasy sports, they can't be casual. They are annoyed by all the stat-crunching, game-watching, and random-player-cursing. I know my wife doesn't care for it because she gives me "that look" on Monday nights when I'm crossing my fingers that Dallas Clark will get 14 more yards or that Ronnie Brown will fumble. I know that look, it's the "Are you serious? If I'd have known you were this crazy, I wouldn't have married you" look. It's the same look I get when I'm cursing at the Playstation or Wii for cheating. But fantasy fans known what I'm talking about. They are just as concerned as I am about the training camp battle for the number two receiver position in Indianapolis.
Why is it addicting? Well, from the perspective of someone who grew up wanting to be a pro athlete, it's a chance to live out dreams. When I was a kid, I turned my backyard into a football (or baseball) field and my driveway into a basketball court. I played out entire seasons of make-believe football or basketball in my head, pretending to pass the ball, being tackled by no one in particular, blocking my own shots, intentionally dropping passes I threw to myself, just so I had control over the situation. (Did I mention I'm an only child?)
Once guys like me pass the point of no return on the pro sports career (in my case it all came crumbling down when I was 15... talk about a reason to be angst-ridden), they usually turn into an arm-chair coach or general manager. They watch games and complain about the call on third-and-7 or the decision to leave the starting pitcher in. They say things like "If we can just get some middle relief, we might contend for the playoffs" or "We need to get him more touches late in the game." Sounds crazy, no?
Fantasy sports allows us to semi-execute these thoughts and stay hooked into the entire league when our real teams suck. I'm sure fantasy football is less popular among Colts fans as it it for Bills fans. If you love football, and you aren't particularly tied to a college team (or they suck, too), then fantasy football is an outlet for your fandom.
So, all that being said, here's the problem with having two fantasy teams at once: it's easy to either forget about one team or make both teams the same. If you two teams with a 14-man roster, you're probably monitoring the stats and injuries of 25-28 guys (more if you are planning a trade or free-agent signing). Either one team falls by the wayside, or you start decreasing that number by signing the same free agents and trading for guys on your other team. What's wrong with that? Well, odds are you aren't going to win BOTH leagues... it's much more likely that you'll fail in both.
Now, I'm not going to hand out any analysis... mostly because I don't know what I'm doing, I've never won a fantasy league. I'll keep you updated throughout the season.
On to some reader comments:
From the College Football Realignment bit:
Bill said: "While I think this is a decent analysis from the football perspective, such conference shuffling will impact all men's and women's sports, and some consideration of other sports should be taken into account. I emphasize "should" because with the recent Big 12 shenanigans that left KU out of the talks completely, we at least see that even men's basketball doesn't have such a (financial) influence as football. Ultimately, you'll have to make a business/tv revenue case that will be financially sound before anyone will seriously consider such reshuffling."
Here, here. All the shifting made no mention of how poor the other programs may be. By adding Nebraska, the Big Ten got better in football (for now) but they got MUCH worse in basketball. Does the Pac-10 know that Colorado doesn't field a baseball team? Or whether or not Utah's women's teams are worth anything? It's all about the benjamins, I guess. That being said, my argument was attempting to supersede any talk about money... I just mentioned it from a "smaller schools can SAVE money" perspective.
ConnQ said: "Hmm.... I only have one thing to say. I don't like it. You know me. You've left out one big reason to keep the bowl system and not have a "playoff" (boo hisss) - tradition. Yep, that's what I like tradition. Oh and you can say we'll have the "non-playoff" bowls and call the playoff games X-bowl or Y-bowl, but you know it won't be the same. Them's my 2 cents, but keep thinking about and one day you'll see the light.
I made no argument FOR the bowl system for good reason: it's become a monster, primarily due to corporate sponsorship. What kind of tradition is the Outback Bowl or the PapaJohns.com Bowl? There are only four bowls with any sort of tradition: Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton. You're telling me that the FedEx Orange Bowl has just as much tradition as the Orange Bowl? If you can't keep the bowl game financially afloat without adding a corporate tag, don't have the bowl game, you've sullied the tradition already.
Oh - and I want my team in the New South (oxymoron anyone?). I mean with Houston, Rice, TCU, UTEP, North Texas, SMU, New Mexico, NM St., Tulsa, La-Lafayette, La-Monroe, La Tech in my conference I won't need to schedule 5 cupcake teams to have a good record. I could have a terrible team and keep a better ranking than most great SEC teams. Lucky me, illusory rankings! Them's my other 2 cents."
Just because a talented team goes 8-4 in the SEC, doesn't mean it WILL go 12-0 in the WAC. My argument is that conference alignment should have no baring on your National Championship aspirations. Put the teams on the field and let the results determine your champ. I still can't give Alabama the title because they didn't beat TCU (no one did). True, if you were TCU in this scenario, you'd be the favorite to win, but that doesn't garauntee anything. I could give up the rule that you have to be ranked by record, but the point is if you are 9-3 you should have less of a chance at the title than an 11-1 team, irregardless of what conference you're in. You do go 11-1 or 10-2 by accident.
On the "About Me" post:
A-Mac said: "What can you say about Kansas except...at least they're not from Canada."
I don't know most kU fans are about as insufferable as French Canadians.
My dad said: "Bottom line - nice history lesson - never quite sure why you saw fit to deliberately latch on to teams in opposition to the ones I liked. It might've been nice to root for the sames teams, although I supported your choices. The only reason I've been a (extremely frustrated) Pirates and Redskins fan is because Mark (his younger brother by 2 years) has always been a Yankees fan and a Cowboys fan and I hate both of those teams. Granted, except for beating the Yankees in the '60 series, the only time the Pirates have been contenders was in the mid-late '70s when they had Stargell and crew."
Just as your brotherly rivalry was all in fun, so was ours. Except for our recurring kU/MU rivalry (which is usually quiet), I no longer cheer against your teams.
I still need more ideas for columns. We're coming up on football season and I'd like to keep you all from being bored with my predictions.
Here's the thing about fantasy sports, it's either addictive or annoying, but not in between. With real sports, you can be a casual fan... checking scores occasionally, cheering when good things happen, shrugging off losses, ignoring it when things get busy elsewhere in your life. But casual sports fans don't like fantasy sports, they can't be casual. They are annoyed by all the stat-crunching, game-watching, and random-player-cursing. I know my wife doesn't care for it because she gives me "that look" on Monday nights when I'm crossing my fingers that Dallas Clark will get 14 more yards or that Ronnie Brown will fumble. I know that look, it's the "Are you serious? If I'd have known you were this crazy, I wouldn't have married you" look. It's the same look I get when I'm cursing at the Playstation or Wii for cheating. But fantasy fans known what I'm talking about. They are just as concerned as I am about the training camp battle for the number two receiver position in Indianapolis.
Why is it addicting? Well, from the perspective of someone who grew up wanting to be a pro athlete, it's a chance to live out dreams. When I was a kid, I turned my backyard into a football (or baseball) field and my driveway into a basketball court. I played out entire seasons of make-believe football or basketball in my head, pretending to pass the ball, being tackled by no one in particular, blocking my own shots, intentionally dropping passes I threw to myself, just so I had control over the situation. (Did I mention I'm an only child?)
Once guys like me pass the point of no return on the pro sports career (in my case it all came crumbling down when I was 15... talk about a reason to be angst-ridden), they usually turn into an arm-chair coach or general manager. They watch games and complain about the call on third-and-7 or the decision to leave the starting pitcher in. They say things like "If we can just get some middle relief, we might contend for the playoffs" or "We need to get him more touches late in the game." Sounds crazy, no?
Fantasy sports allows us to semi-execute these thoughts and stay hooked into the entire league when our real teams suck. I'm sure fantasy football is less popular among Colts fans as it it for Bills fans. If you love football, and you aren't particularly tied to a college team (or they suck, too), then fantasy football is an outlet for your fandom.
So, all that being said, here's the problem with having two fantasy teams at once: it's easy to either forget about one team or make both teams the same. If you two teams with a 14-man roster, you're probably monitoring the stats and injuries of 25-28 guys (more if you are planning a trade or free-agent signing). Either one team falls by the wayside, or you start decreasing that number by signing the same free agents and trading for guys on your other team. What's wrong with that? Well, odds are you aren't going to win BOTH leagues... it's much more likely that you'll fail in both.
Now, I'm not going to hand out any analysis... mostly because I don't know what I'm doing, I've never won a fantasy league. I'll keep you updated throughout the season.
On to some reader comments:
From the College Football Realignment bit:
Bill said: "While I think this is a decent analysis from the football perspective, such conference shuffling will impact all men's and women's sports, and some consideration of other sports should be taken into account. I emphasize "should" because with the recent Big 12 shenanigans that left KU out of the talks completely, we at least see that even men's basketball doesn't have such a (financial) influence as football. Ultimately, you'll have to make a business/tv revenue case that will be financially sound before anyone will seriously consider such reshuffling."
Here, here. All the shifting made no mention of how poor the other programs may be. By adding Nebraska, the Big Ten got better in football (for now) but they got MUCH worse in basketball. Does the Pac-10 know that Colorado doesn't field a baseball team? Or whether or not Utah's women's teams are worth anything? It's all about the benjamins, I guess. That being said, my argument was attempting to supersede any talk about money... I just mentioned it from a "smaller schools can SAVE money" perspective.
ConnQ said: "Hmm.... I only have one thing to say. I don't like it. You know me. You've left out one big reason to keep the bowl system and not have a "playoff" (boo hisss) - tradition. Yep, that's what I like tradition. Oh and you can say we'll have the "non-playoff" bowls and call the playoff games X-bowl or Y-bowl, but you know it won't be the same. Them's my 2 cents, but keep thinking about and one day you'll see the light.
I made no argument FOR the bowl system for good reason: it's become a monster, primarily due to corporate sponsorship. What kind of tradition is the Outback Bowl or the PapaJohns.com Bowl? There are only four bowls with any sort of tradition: Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton. You're telling me that the FedEx Orange Bowl has just as much tradition as the Orange Bowl? If you can't keep the bowl game financially afloat without adding a corporate tag, don't have the bowl game, you've sullied the tradition already.
Oh - and I want my team in the New South (oxymoron anyone?). I mean with Houston, Rice, TCU, UTEP, North Texas, SMU, New Mexico, NM St., Tulsa, La-Lafayette, La-Monroe, La Tech in my conference I won't need to schedule 5 cupcake teams to have a good record. I could have a terrible team and keep a better ranking than most great SEC teams. Lucky me, illusory rankings! Them's my other 2 cents."
Just because a talented team goes 8-4 in the SEC, doesn't mean it WILL go 12-0 in the WAC. My argument is that conference alignment should have no baring on your National Championship aspirations. Put the teams on the field and let the results determine your champ. I still can't give Alabama the title because they didn't beat TCU (no one did). True, if you were TCU in this scenario, you'd be the favorite to win, but that doesn't garauntee anything. I could give up the rule that you have to be ranked by record, but the point is if you are 9-3 you should have less of a chance at the title than an 11-1 team, irregardless of what conference you're in. You do go 11-1 or 10-2 by accident.
On the "About Me" post:
A-Mac said: "What can you say about Kansas except...at least they're not from Canada."
I don't know most kU fans are about as insufferable as French Canadians.
My dad said: "Bottom line - nice history lesson - never quite sure why you saw fit to deliberately latch on to teams in opposition to the ones I liked. It might've been nice to root for the sames teams, although I supported your choices. The only reason I've been a (extremely frustrated) Pirates and Redskins fan is because Mark (his younger brother by 2 years) has always been a Yankees fan and a Cowboys fan and I hate both of those teams. Granted, except for beating the Yankees in the '60 series, the only time the Pirates have been contenders was in the mid-late '70s when they had Stargell and crew."
Just as your brotherly rivalry was all in fun, so was ours. Except for our recurring kU/MU rivalry (which is usually quiet), I no longer cheer against your teams.
I still need more ideas for columns. We're coming up on football season and I'd like to keep you all from being bored with my predictions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)