Posts Tagged ‘Kansas City Royals’

Royal-ty

November 2, 2015
Hail the Royals

Hail the Royals

Congratulations to the Kansas City Royals on their World Series win. And condolences to all the Mets fans (sorry, Bill). Here’s a few quick thoughts on the Series from someone who had no rooting interest in the outcome.

First, the Mets appear to be a very good team that has a chance to continue in contention if things go right for them (never a given). They have four strong arms that can keep the team in games. Of course that was true of the 1986 version, the last Mets team to win it all, and none of the big names (Darling, Gooden, Ojeda) became dominant starters over a long period of time. As long as the current Mets big four are healthy and signed it’s probably a good thing for New York. They have got to find someone who can catch the ball and who can throw in a straight line. Errors hurt the team and sometimes I wondered if they knew what to do with a baseball once it was hit to them. Hopefully the Series dampened the enthusiasm to give Murphy a ton of money. He had a great pre-Series playoffs and looked poised to make a boatload of cash. Frankly I was afraid some team (my Dodgers need a second baseman and have lots of money so they came to mind) would pay him a lot more than he was worth and be stuck with another awful contract. I did like seeing David Wright get a chance to play in a  World Series and hope he gets another. He’s been a stalwart for a long time (in baseball terms) and I’ve always kind of liked him.

And now Kansas City. I have no idea how to explain this team. They remind me of a Deadball team in so many ways. They string together hits, run rampant on the bases, steal a lot, don’t strike out a bunch, play good defense. All of those things describe John McGraw’s 1912 Giants (with proper deference to the defense of the era). But then the Royals hit for power (but not Ruthian power) and have a less than dominating staff, neither of which describe the 1912 Giants. In some ways they remind me most of the 1996-2003 Yankees. They do many of the same things well and have no genuine superstar (Jeter was a star and became a superstar as the Yanks kept winning–the same can happen to a Royals player if they keep winning). I don’t expect them to have the same staying power because they don’t have the same quality pitching, especially among the starters, but the two teams are much alike (but certainly not exact copies).

All in all I enjoyed the World Series. Kansas City is fun to watch. One of the announcers last night kept comparing their enthusiasm to a youth baseball team. I kinda like that. It’s nice to see a bench excited. Now on to next season and Go Dodgers.

Adding Managers and Contributors to the Hall of Fame

November 29, 2009

Below I’ve already made known my preference for Marvin Miller in the Hall of Fame. There are a number of others being considered on the December ballot. Some of them ought to be enshrined.

At SportsPhd there’s a good overview of the candidates, so I’ll simply add that I agree with him on managers. Tom Kelly won 2 World Series’ with teams that were underdogs and few legitimate Hall of Fame candidates. Danny Murtaugh did the same thing in the 1960s and 1970s. He had more Hall of Fame players, but he also has the advantage of leaving, seeing the team collapse, and having it revive upon his return. This at least leaves the impression he made a significant difference in the team. I think he did.

Of the contributors I like Colonel Ruppert who gave us the original Yankees dynasties, Howsam who built 2 great teams, and Ewing Kauffman of the Royals. Kauffmann? Well, at least when he was paying the checks the Royals got George Brett, Frank White, and a couple of trips to the World Series (winning in 1985). Once he left the stage, the Royals have collapsed. That ought to be worth remembering.