Something had to give, right?
It's mid-December. The Chiefs are 8-4 and hold a two-game lead in the AFC West. A win this Sunday in San Diego, and the team would have all but wrapped up the division.
Oh, and yesterday, the team (because of timing, not arrogance) began sending out e-mails discussing playoff-ticket options for its season-ticket holders.
Then, the appendectomy.
Showing posts with label Sports Radio 810. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sports Radio 810. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Whitlock's Absence Would Be Felt
This morning I got an e-mail from a friend of mine. In the message was a link to a story by Bottom Line Communications about Holly Lawton's recent announcement that she will resign as Sports Editor for The Kansas City Star.
BLC goes on to speculate that Lawton's decision stems from her differences with the Star's lead sports columnist, Jason Whitlock. According to an inside source, Whitlock had a problem with editors over-editing his columns and also wasn't a fan of working for a woman.
Later in the day, 810 WHB's Kevin Kietzman proposed the idea that Whitlock may have already written his last column for the Star on his radio show. After all, the newspaper had assured readers that the controversial writer was on a seven-week vacation and would be back soon. Problem is, Whitlock's last column was printed May 26th, so seven weeks has come and gone.
A couple things need to be made clear here. The BLC story seemed amateur and extremely biased. Before this morning, I had never heard of BLC, and if you can get past the sloppiness of their website, maybe you can fill me in on what exactly it is that they do.
So, past a possible Lawton/Whitlock quarrel, we'd be smart to take the rest of the story with a grain of salt.
Also, it's obvious Kietzman had ulterior motives. During his piece on Whitlock, Kietzman mentioned that it's possible the overweight writer is on a leave of absence because he has an addiction or is on a weight-loss program. Kietzman's goal, other than to insult Whitlock, was more about pointing out that he believes that most Kansas City sports fans haven't noticed the writer's absence than it was about analyzing what his absence might mean (like he tried to sell to his listeners).
If you don't already know, he and Whitlock have a bit of a history. Years ago, somewhat of a competition began between them when they worked together at 810 WHB (Kietzman was more or less Whitlock's boss). Eventually, Whitlock claims, Kietzman crossed the line and the two have been dissing eachother on and off by way of their respective outlets ever since.
So we know to keep our minds open when reading or listening to egomaniacal media-types. Still, Kietzman's theory absolutely holds water. The Chiefs have started their training camp, and Whitlock is nowhere near St. Joseph. During his absence from the Star, he has continued to write his column for Foxsports.com. Add to that the ongoing fear that newspapers have almost become obsolete in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, and it's not hard to imagine Whitlock's time with the Star coming to an end.
Kietzman preached to his listeners earlier that it was "interesting" that people didn't care if Whitlock wrote his column or not. It's natural Kietzman would feel this way. Not long after his arrival at the Star in 1994, Whitlock had become the King of Kansas City sports-media, a title Kietzman has long-starved for and never quite reached.
I really believe people do care. I believe they care now and I believe they'll care more if Whitlock's column is missing during football season. Since I was about ten years old, I've been reading his opinion on many sports topics, but mainly his unique criticism of the Chiefs. I didn't always agree with Whitlock, but I realized early on that that wasn't what it was all about.
It's more than just gaining readers and pleasing the eye or the ear. It's about writing with conviction and respect at the same time. It's about inspiring others, including myself, to write and to not be afraid of what it may sound like or who it might upset or whatever else.
If this really is it, I can't say I like the abruptness of it. Say what you want about Whitlock the man, his departure from the Star would surely impact the city and our newspaper negatively. If you're one of the many who disagree with his column often, it really doesn't matter. We need an opinion to hate.
BLC goes on to speculate that Lawton's decision stems from her differences with the Star's lead sports columnist, Jason Whitlock. According to an inside source, Whitlock had a problem with editors over-editing his columns and also wasn't a fan of working for a woman.
Later in the day, 810 WHB's Kevin Kietzman proposed the idea that Whitlock may have already written his last column for the Star on his radio show. After all, the newspaper had assured readers that the controversial writer was on a seven-week vacation and would be back soon. Problem is, Whitlock's last column was printed May 26th, so seven weeks has come and gone.
A couple things need to be made clear here. The BLC story seemed amateur and extremely biased. Before this morning, I had never heard of BLC, and if you can get past the sloppiness of their website, maybe you can fill me in on what exactly it is that they do.
So, past a possible Lawton/Whitlock quarrel, we'd be smart to take the rest of the story with a grain of salt.
Also, it's obvious Kietzman had ulterior motives. During his piece on Whitlock, Kietzman mentioned that it's possible the overweight writer is on a leave of absence because he has an addiction or is on a weight-loss program. Kietzman's goal, other than to insult Whitlock, was more about pointing out that he believes that most Kansas City sports fans haven't noticed the writer's absence than it was about analyzing what his absence might mean (like he tried to sell to his listeners).
If you don't already know, he and Whitlock have a bit of a history. Years ago, somewhat of a competition began between them when they worked together at 810 WHB (Kietzman was more or less Whitlock's boss). Eventually, Whitlock claims, Kietzman crossed the line and the two have been dissing eachother on and off by way of their respective outlets ever since.
So we know to keep our minds open when reading or listening to egomaniacal media-types. Still, Kietzman's theory absolutely holds water. The Chiefs have started their training camp, and Whitlock is nowhere near St. Joseph. During his absence from the Star, he has continued to write his column for Foxsports.com. Add to that the ongoing fear that newspapers have almost become obsolete in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, and it's not hard to imagine Whitlock's time with the Star coming to an end.
Kietzman preached to his listeners earlier that it was "interesting" that people didn't care if Whitlock wrote his column or not. It's natural Kietzman would feel this way. Not long after his arrival at the Star in 1994, Whitlock had become the King of Kansas City sports-media, a title Kietzman has long-starved for and never quite reached.
I really believe people do care. I believe they care now and I believe they'll care more if Whitlock's column is missing during football season. Since I was about ten years old, I've been reading his opinion on many sports topics, but mainly his unique criticism of the Chiefs. I didn't always agree with Whitlock, but I realized early on that that wasn't what it was all about.
It's more than just gaining readers and pleasing the eye or the ear. It's about writing with conviction and respect at the same time. It's about inspiring others, including myself, to write and to not be afraid of what it may sound like or who it might upset or whatever else.
If this really is it, I can't say I like the abruptness of it. Say what you want about Whitlock the man, his departure from the Star would surely impact the city and our newspaper negatively. If you're one of the many who disagree with his column often, it really doesn't matter. We need an opinion to hate.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Big Inning
On my way to work yesterday morning I got a chance to listen to my favorite sports talk radio announcer, Soren Petro. For reasons I cannot control, I haven't gotten a chance to listen to sports radio 810 in awhile, let alone Soren.
Soren is my favorite radio personality (on all formats) for many reasons, but none more than his no b.s. tone when it comes to the inadequacy of the Chiefs and Royals. Maybe it was his time away from Kansas City at Syracuse University that helped shape his view of what we, as fans, can and should expect out of our local teams. In any event, I guess I just feel like my level of frustration with the professional teams in Kansas City is echoed during his show.
Anyway, in the first segment of his program, which happens to be called "The Program", he discussed the Royals 10-5 victory over the Twins on Sunday. The game was more or less decided by the six spot the Royals' offense posted in the third inning. I caught only a couple minutes of the segment, but the general point of Soren's spiel was that the team that scores the most runs in any one single inning, or more generally the team that has the biggest inning, will usually win the game.
Soren cited that after Sunday's win, in all Royals games, the team that had the biggest inning was 10-1-1 in those 12 games (the tie being when neither team had a bigger inning than the other). Pushing further, he raised the possibility that teams like the Royals, who often play "small ball" and sacrifice and move runners to maximize their chances of scoring at least one run in an inning, are actually hurting, not helping, their chances of winning.
So after the Royals' forgettable 8-1 loss in Toronto Monday night, I decided to research it a bit. After checking on Soren's tally and adding in Monday's game, the team that has the biggest inning is now 11-1-1 in all Royals games.
I wanted a bigger sample, though. Reviewing all Major League games through Monday, the team that has the biggest inning is 132-19-46. That's an .874 winning percentage.
I wanted to see if the trend changed from good teams to bad teams, so I researched what the records were for the teams with the best and worst records in baseball. That would be the Rays (best) and Orioles (worst). But because those two teams have played eachother six times already this season, therefore making the comparison between the two fairly obsolete, I ditched the Rays for the Phillies, who are probably the best team in baseball, anyway.
For Philadelphia's games, the big inning team was 8-2-2, and for Baltimore it was a glaring 10-0-4. So the trend continues.
Managers like the Royals' Trey Hillman will often cite the team's lack of power (lack of talent) as to why they play small ball. More or less, they're saying, "We don't hit well enough to count on the big inning, so we ought to make sure and at least score one when we can."
Soren, naturally, has a different take. He actually looks at it the opposite as Hillman or any other small ball defender does. He believes that teams like the Royals, who openly admit they're at a talent disadvantage basically every night, can even less afford to ignore a glaring trend like this, because, as previously stated, they don't have the talent to make up for it. In other words, teams like the Phillies and Yankees can win in spite of the numbers (or in spite of not "playing the numbers") more often than a team like the Royals because they're more talented.
I don't know if any of this means anything. I, as much as any other baseball junkie, have this thing with numbers. You see, it doesn't matter what the numbers are, or really, how relevant they are. You just have to have numbers, and we're happy.
I do know I'll be thinking about this the next time the Royals play for one run in an inning. Especially in a game that ends up being decided by two or three runs. "What if they didn't bunt him over? That guy might have singled, and the extra guy up in the inning would have hit the three-run home run we needed!" And so on.
I also know that with the way the Royals' bullpen has pitched, they'll be the ones GIVING UP the big inning more often than not. Actually, that's already true so far, given the Royals' record is 5-8 through Monday. Okay, so maybe the talk should be more about minizing the big inning while pitching.
And so there you have it. Another trend directly correlating to victories that can be traced back to the bullpen's struggles. Many a Royals manager have tried and failed at solving that riddle. My guess is, possibly to no fault of his own, Hillman won't find the answer, either.
Soren is my favorite radio personality (on all formats) for many reasons, but none more than his no b.s. tone when it comes to the inadequacy of the Chiefs and Royals. Maybe it was his time away from Kansas City at Syracuse University that helped shape his view of what we, as fans, can and should expect out of our local teams. In any event, I guess I just feel like my level of frustration with the professional teams in Kansas City is echoed during his show.
Anyway, in the first segment of his program, which happens to be called "The Program", he discussed the Royals 10-5 victory over the Twins on Sunday. The game was more or less decided by the six spot the Royals' offense posted in the third inning. I caught only a couple minutes of the segment, but the general point of Soren's spiel was that the team that scores the most runs in any one single inning, or more generally the team that has the biggest inning, will usually win the game.
Soren cited that after Sunday's win, in all Royals games, the team that had the biggest inning was 10-1-1 in those 12 games (the tie being when neither team had a bigger inning than the other). Pushing further, he raised the possibility that teams like the Royals, who often play "small ball" and sacrifice and move runners to maximize their chances of scoring at least one run in an inning, are actually hurting, not helping, their chances of winning.
So after the Royals' forgettable 8-1 loss in Toronto Monday night, I decided to research it a bit. After checking on Soren's tally and adding in Monday's game, the team that has the biggest inning is now 11-1-1 in all Royals games.
I wanted a bigger sample, though. Reviewing all Major League games through Monday, the team that has the biggest inning is 132-19-46. That's an .874 winning percentage.
I wanted to see if the trend changed from good teams to bad teams, so I researched what the records were for the teams with the best and worst records in baseball. That would be the Rays (best) and Orioles (worst). But because those two teams have played eachother six times already this season, therefore making the comparison between the two fairly obsolete, I ditched the Rays for the Phillies, who are probably the best team in baseball, anyway.
For Philadelphia's games, the big inning team was 8-2-2, and for Baltimore it was a glaring 10-0-4. So the trend continues.
Managers like the Royals' Trey Hillman will often cite the team's lack of power (lack of talent) as to why they play small ball. More or less, they're saying, "We don't hit well enough to count on the big inning, so we ought to make sure and at least score one when we can."
Soren, naturally, has a different take. He actually looks at it the opposite as Hillman or any other small ball defender does. He believes that teams like the Royals, who openly admit they're at a talent disadvantage basically every night, can even less afford to ignore a glaring trend like this, because, as previously stated, they don't have the talent to make up for it. In other words, teams like the Phillies and Yankees can win in spite of the numbers (or in spite of not "playing the numbers") more often than a team like the Royals because they're more talented.
I don't know if any of this means anything. I, as much as any other baseball junkie, have this thing with numbers. You see, it doesn't matter what the numbers are, or really, how relevant they are. You just have to have numbers, and we're happy.
I do know I'll be thinking about this the next time the Royals play for one run in an inning. Especially in a game that ends up being decided by two or three runs. "What if they didn't bunt him over? That guy might have singled, and the extra guy up in the inning would have hit the three-run home run we needed!" And so on.
I also know that with the way the Royals' bullpen has pitched, they'll be the ones GIVING UP the big inning more often than not. Actually, that's already true so far, given the Royals' record is 5-8 through Monday. Okay, so maybe the talk should be more about minizing the big inning while pitching.
And so there you have it. Another trend directly correlating to victories that can be traced back to the bullpen's struggles. Many a Royals manager have tried and failed at solving that riddle. My guess is, possibly to no fault of his own, Hillman won't find the answer, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)