Babb's story proves these Chiefs are a sad joke

The worst part about Kent Babb's bombshell story in The Kansas City Star Sunday?

We'd been led to believe the circus was over.

Chiefs have leaks in their ship

With the way the team started 2011, you would have guessed the Chiefs' bye-week would have been a blessing to those driving the ship.

Guess again.

Your wish has been granted, Cassel-haters

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.

Royals can't (or won't) stop the bleeding in 2011 and beyond

It's likely you've had more important things to do with your time than keeping up with a losing baseball team in October, so you probably didn't hear. Baseball's regular season came to a close Sunday, with our Royals falling to the postseason-bound Tampa Bay Rays 3-2 in extra innings.

The team, a shell of its former, fresh out-of-spring training, just-as-talentless self, finished the season with a 67-95 record. Our boys in blue haven't fielded an above-.500 team since 2003, and that fluky season was the lone time in the last 16 years that anything close to winning baseball has been played out at Kauffman Stadium.

It's terrible.

Whitlock's Departure Signals End of an Era

After almost four months of what the Kansas City Star was calling a "vacation", the newspaper announced today that their lead sports columnist, Jason Whitlock, was leaving the paper to "pursue other interests".

The aren't many words to describe the loss this is for the Kansas City sports scene, and that's ironic considering Whitlock, the writer. He was never a man of few words.

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.

Conventional Wisdom Could Be the Problem

There's an interesting section of The Kansas City Star's website that has kind of gone under my radar for the first month of the season. It's called 'Judging the Royals', and it's based on a somewhat unorthodox system used to judge the Royals, mostly individually, over the course of the season.

The system is based off the 'Most Valuable Player' chart created some three decades ago by Coach Ron Polk, a member of the College Baseball Hall of Fame and the winningest coach in SEC history. After tweaking the system a bit with the help of Polk, Star contributor Lee Judge launched the updated system and site before the start of the current Royals season.

You can check it out for yourself, but basically, as Polk explains, "the system is designed to reward good baseball, hustle, and effort while punishing giving away free bases through walks and errors."

It seems pretty obvious, to me at least, that most coaches in baseball would already be preaching this type of attitude and philosophy on a daily basis, anyway. But not so fast.

The system's biggest influence, for pitchers anyway, is to throw strikes. The system does not punish hits. It punishes walks, especially lead-off walks to start an inning, worse than, say, a pitcher who gives up four runs or more in an appearance. Polk's opinion is that he can live with whatever happens when a pitcher throws strikes. He knows that with that, his pitchers will give up hits, and he can live with that.

"He's focused on effort and approach, not results, because he knows if the effort is correct, over time, the results will be there," Judge says.

The system also recognizes things that would go unnoticed in a box score. It rewards a catcher for not allowing a runner to advance by blocking a pitch in the dirt. There are also point categories for making a tough play look easy and mental mistakes - Billy Butler are you listening - that may have caused another teammate to commit an error.

I guess my point is that it's a shame that this isn't considered conventional wisdom in baseball, or at least with the Royals. It's a shame any of us could get this impressed by a system that seems so simple and obvious. Having watched the Royals lose the way they have (because of the bullpen) for the first month of this season, and really, for the last two decades, you just have to wonder what's really going on with this team.

How many lead-off walks does it take? How many failed sacrifices or unproductive outs or missed cut-off men does it take? Is it not time to buy into unconventional wisdom, or should we wait for another ten years of losing before considering alternatives?

Manager Trey Hillman cannot afford to wait. This is the last year of Hillman's contract and it's decision time for General Manager Dayton Moore. If Moore decides to offer Hillman a contract extension, it could ultimately end up costing both of them their jobs. If Moore decides to fire Hillman, then, well, Coach Polk, are you available?

Anyway, on to the game..

The Royals found a way to waste ANOTHER great start by pitcher Zack Greinke today, losing 1-0 to the Tampa Bay Rays. It's really come to the point where I would seriously not be surprised if we woke up tomorrow to hear that Greinke has quit baseball again.

I only had one beef with the way Hillman managed this one. First though, it's worth noting that he didn't have much to work with as the Royals only managed three hits off Rays rookie starting pitcher Wade Davis.*

*Why does it seem like the Royals always make rookie starting pitchers look like Cy Young Award winners? Since I can remember, it has always been a sign of bad things to come when I hear the Royals are facing a rookie, or even just facing a guy for the first time. On the other hand, it never seems to bode well for the Royals when they run out an unprepared rookie pitcher for the first time. Hmm.

Still, in the second inning, with two on, and nobody out, Hillman chose to bunt with Jason Kendall to advance the runners. Kendall popped the bunt up for an out, though, and the runners stayed put. The Royals, obviously given the final score, didn't score in the inning.

You may remember my blog about playing for the big inning versus small ball. The general point there was that, over the course of a season, trying to sacrifice runners ends up costing a team runs (and wins) over the long haul because the chances of getting a big inning are lowered after handing the opponent an out.

Now, let's fast forward to the seventh inning. At this point, the Rays are up 1-0, but the Royals have a runner at second with nobody out, and Mitch Maier is at the plate. My overall opinion about playing small ball is that, if you're going to use it, it should only be used in the seventh inning or later, in a one-run or tie game.

Let's not worry about my opinion, though. Regardless of what I think, Hillman has already played small ball once in the game, and most managers would tell you that if you're ever going to use it, now is the time. Mitch Maier has good bat control and the Royals desperately need a run. This is when you forgo the big inning to make sure and tie the game.

Hillman, instead, opted this time to let the hitter swing away. As we know, it did not end well, as the next three Royal hitters failed to come through. The Royals lost the game. Zack Greinke lost the game, and is now 0-3 with a 2.27 ERA. What's worse is the Royals are now 1-5 in his starts.* Ugh.

*I could go on about the Royals absolute WASTE of the best pitcher in baseball, but that has already been well documented by Joe Posnanski in the Star and on his blog. You really have to check it out, it's stunning.

Back to the point. The Royals offense today, while struggling, still had an opportunity to get a run or two if they could have just made the most of their opportunities. Managers in baseball absolutely love putting their stamp on the game, though some would argue that baseball is the sport where coaching has the least to do with the outcome. Actually, that's probably why most baseball managers jump at the chance to make an impact in the game.

Anyway, today, when presented with the opportunity on two different occasions, Hillman made the wrong decision in both instances. I'm not saying the Royals lost because of Hillman. The Royals lost for many reasons, and when you get three hits and lose 1-0, it's hard to blame the loss on the manager. But with the talent disadvantage the Royals seem to be at, it will be absolutely impossible for them to win with Hillman's odd and inconsistent decision-making, like we saw today.