So the Mariners released Richie Sexson.  The Royals could maybe possibly use a first baseman with power.  Boy could they ever.  Sexson ~had~ power.  Check out his history:

Could Sexson rediscover his power under the tutelage of Mike Barnett?  Could he at least be a stopgap---a worthy experiment?  Would a reunion with Guillen help---Guillen (hah!)?  Would Sexson help with the team's leadership void?  Tune in below for answers.  PS/Update - Every comment should begin with Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. - TL

This debate has been ongoing in fanposts and gamethreads.  Regular readers will know that I prefer he remain in the closing role for:

(a) As long as we have a reliable group of starters (admittedly a game-to-game sensibility);

(b) As long as Senor Soria wants to close;

(c) This season at least.

Many here at RR who care about this disagree with me.  With that in mind, I wrote the following this morning:

---------------------------------------------------

Dear Joe [Posnanski],

I'm having too many debates with the Royals Review blog crowd about
Soria as a starter versus closer.  If you wrote a column on this, as a
follow-up to your last KC Star column (or at least the last one
appearing at the online Star), I expect you'd get hundreds of
comments. To help fuel the fire, or settle the debate, you should
enlist your sometime buddy Bill James to add some extra baseball
gravitas to the column.  I ask you to do this because I want your
column to be my reference point (meaning, last word) on the issue
until the Royals switch Soria to the starting role.

Help!

Sincerely,

Tim Lacy
Chicago, IL

--------------------------------------------

To me the key to this request is Bill James---God to the baseball stats/sabermetrics crowd.  If we all write Joe, asking him to do this, perhaps he'll at least make it a long blog post. - TL

See here for more.  The post is two weeks old (June 16), but scroll down to this:

------------------------------

Rowdy Hardy (Royals) deserves a lot of credit. After dominating the Carolina League last year, the 25-year-old lefthander was beaten around in his first trip around the Texas League to the tune of a 0-2, 6.23 record in five April starts. But since mid-May, the lefty who has two speeds, slow and slower, has started to get a handle on Double-A.

Hardy allowed six hits in seven scoreless innings last night. He’s now allowed one run in his last 13 innings and is 3-2, 2.76 in his past seven starts.

------------------------------

Well, it's nice to see that Hardy is coming around.  If his name were Hochevar, he'd have been promoted to AAA already.  But since he's Hardy of the 75 mph fastball (exaggeration), he'll have to show himself for a whole year at AA.  I hope he does!

There was an RR post the other day about knuckleballers.  Maybe we need to think of Hardy as a modified to knuckler so that people will stop knocking the guy for not being the next Saberhagen--err Greinke. - TL

So I've avoided posting during the losing streak.  I didn't want to add to the pessimism.  Now that the team is on a teeny little roll, I'll hazard a post.

I've been singing of the praises of Jason Whitlock for years---both to him (in many unsolicited e-mails) and others.  I love his coverage of the Chiefs: nobody does it better.  But this piece on the Royals and their shortstop situation is not a worthy addition to his oeuvre. 

In Whitlock's defense, he was covering for Joe Posnanski in trying keep up with losing-streak commentary.  But there's not a lot of baseball intellect in the piece.  The thesis of the article seems to be that every organization must have a shortstop that functions as a kind of heart-of-the-team guy.  They all must be like Derek Jeter, to use a recent example. 

This is a flawed argument.  I love Tony Pena, Jr.'s defense.  I don't know his "zone rating," but I can imagine it to be pretty swell.  But we don't need Tony to be a team leader---neither in the locker room nor even (other than calling off others) on the field.

To counter Whitlock's argument, I'll start with a mere nuts-and-bolts analysis.  There comes a point when one's plate deficiencies override defense.  If I'm thinking through my baseball history correctly, a defensive-oriented shortstop like Pena has to be capable of at least a .220-.250 average (without power) to justify his existence on the field and in the lineup.  Pena is .070 below even this minimal standard.

But this only covers the numbers.  Citing shortstop as a premier position for exhibiting the heart and soul of the team has no strong basis in baseball history.  Who can remember the shortstop from the 2003 Marlins?  Who was the shortstop for the 1985 Royals (this isn't a fair question on this site, but it makes a point)?  Who was the Phillies shortstop in 1980?  Who was the Yankees shortstop on those magnificent late 1970s teams?  

Of course I'm aware of the examples cited in the piece, but there's no reason to rationally argue that problems at shortstop this year are ~the~ problem with this Royals team.  The biggest flaw with the team---one that can't really be substantially corrected midseason---is its month-of-May hitting slump.  Most of the lineup (excepting Gordon and Guillen---the Killer Gs?!) went in the tank.  Period.

So Jason, I love you, but incorporate some more of your baseball intellect into your next piece on our beloved Royals.  They had a bad May, but let's not add to their public relations problems with poor media coverage. - TL

From today's Kansas City Star :

“Dayton Moore has done a great job of building [the team] and designing it,” [George] Brett said. “You’ve got a good rotation with young guys who can come out and beat you any given night.

“And I really think another major piece has been Joakim Soria. He may have some off nights every now and then, but he gives the team a sense of confidence it hasn’t had for a long time.”

Shoring up the closer’s role and signing Soria to a long-term deal was key, Brett said.

“There is nothing more devastating to a baseball team than a blown save,” Brett said. “You’re bound to get some. When you have a 3-2 lead and you think you have it wrapped up and the next thing you know, you lose 4-3, it’s devastating.

“With Soria, we haven’t had that hardly at all. I remember talking to (manager) Mike Scioscia of the Angels last year, and he was so impressed when we had Zack Greinke and Soria in the back of the bullpen. He’d say, ‘You guys turn games into seven-inning games.’ ”

It was just yesterday (or the day before) that I argued that Soria shouldn't go to the rotation.  I cited the calamity that is a blown save, and the positive results of a shortened sense of opportunity for the opposing team.

 It's nice to see George backing me up. - TL

We took six walks in last night's second game against the Yankees: 3 by Teahan, 1 by Grudzielanek, 1 by Butler, and 1 by Gordon.  I recall Teahan having a few games like this last year. 

We struck out 9 times. Only Grudzielanek and Butler didn't.  The former doesn't surprise me, being a contact machine.  But the latter does---Butler having been so hot.  Gordon struck out twice. I didn't get to see the game, so I don't know how many of the Royals batter strikeouts were called.  I can't, therefore, calculate my idea for a plate discipline statistic (called strikeouts plus walks).

But the Royals made Yankees pitchers throw 137 pitches in the game.  That 137 divided by 36 plate appearances is 3.81 pitches per plate appearance.  That's quite healthy. 

Sure, as with game 1, the conditions weren't great.  But the Greinke, Yabuta, Gobble triumvirate threw 129 pitches, giving up 3 walks and 3 strikeouts in 34 Yankees plate appearances.  That means the Yankees also took about 3.8 pitches per at bat.  So, no advantage, but we were at least on par with the vaunted Yanks---and we were more efficient when we swung.

I'd say last night was ~a~ prime example of Hillman's preaching "selective aggression."  Let's keep it up! - TL

In light of this, I would like our very own moderator, Will McDonald, to issue a public apology. ;) 

But seriously, the ~five~ walks earned in today's game ought to assuage the concerns of all posters here about the Royals' ability to take pitches.  Words like "hackfest" and "hacksticity" need not apply.  Save 'em for your Reds postings.

Per my comment on the now infamous "117" post, the Royals are going to have to swing for stretches to be a team that'll get balls out of the strike zone.  I think I recall the phrase "selective aggression" being used in ST by Mr. Hillman.  - TL

In ST threads, I was a persistent skeptic of placing Tomko in the rotation.  His brief relief appearance last week didn't make me feel any better.  But here's today's line:

All I can say is this: I'm happy to be wrong.  The ESPN summary noted that Tomko started (no pun intended) strong like this last year and then faded.  Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself---or else I'll renew my calls for Hochevar. - TL

...for DH duties. ;) ... This one's for all you chumps who couldn't handle the April Fool's post on Roberts.  - TL

A fan at The Good Phight put up a post comparing all NL teams to a current or past band.  Here's the entry on the Cubs:

Chicago Cubs are Jimmy Buffett: Millions of people like them for some reason, despite having done nothing worthwhile for a full century.  The culture of drinking surrounding each probably explains this tolerance for failure.  The fans are generally affable and friendly, but are single-mindedly dedicated to their hero(es).  Fans will travel thousands of miles to see them play.

Here is another in which BCB readers might be interested:

St. Louis Cardinals are The Beach Boys: The wholesome, family-friendly exterior conceals a deviant, tragic core (substance abuse, performance enhancing and otherwise; tragic deaths of key performers).  Led by an authoritarian egomaniac (Tony LaRussa; Murry Wilson).  One brilliant member surrounded by a rotating cast of a couple solid supporting players and a bunch of scrubs (Albert Pujols; Brian Wilson).  Shocking, inexplicable late-career resurgence (2006 postseason; "Kokomo").

- TL