Bye bye, Zack Greinke

My favorite Kansas City Royal is still George Brett.

It should be Zack Greinke, but it can’t be anymore. He’ll be pitching Opening Day for the Milwaukee Brewers. Part of me knew this was inevitable. Mostly I’m glad he won’t be pitching for the Yankees.
Read more

Do Christians hate soldiers? No!

I’ve seen the question come up on Digg more than once: Why do Christians hate soldiers?

The perception undoubtedly comes from the protests at military funerals. Unfortunately, there’s a small fringe group from Kansas that’s giving the perception that Christians hate soldiers.

Read more

Why don’t wins count anymore?

In Kansas City, baseball fans are celebrating. In St. Louis, they’re fuming.

It’s usually the other way around. Right now, Royals fans are celebrating Zack Greinke’s highly deserved Cy Young Award. In St. Louis, fans are complaining that Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright, expected to finish 1-2 in the voting, got "snubbed" and lost to San Francisco’s Tim Lincecum, who won a total of 15 games.

Greinke, for what it’s worth, won 16.The Cy Young Award usually is "the pitcher with the most wins" award. And that makes a little sense–Cy Young won 511 games in his career, the most all-time. And that itself shows the problem with wins.

Cy Young is the winningest pitcher of all time, but he’s not the best. Walter Johnson won 417 games pitching mostly for last-place Washington Senators teams. Put him on the teams Young pitched for, and he would have won more than 511 games. Win 110 games over the course of your career and you’re considered a pretty good pitcher. Johnson pitched 110 shutouts.

I learned playing Micro League Baseball in the mid 1980s that wins are an overrated statistic. Cy Young was an outstanding pitcher, but Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove could beat him most of the time. Advanced baseball statistics barely existed in the mid 1980s and my Commodore 64 sure didn’t know anything about them, but I quickly started paying attention to WHIP–walks plus hits per innings pitched.

In their best seasons, Johnson and Grove permitted fewer than one baserunner per inning. And they permitted fewer baserunners than Young. Fewer baserunners means fewer chances to score, which means a better chance of winning.

Greinke and Lince*censored*won on the strength of their advanced statistics. Carpenter and Wainwright were very good this year. But they gave up more baserunners per inning than Greinke and Lince*censored*did, and other advanced statistics also indicated that Greinke and Lince*censored*were the better pitchers last year.

In the case of Greinke, the Royals lost six games in which he gave up one run or fewer. Yes, you read that right. Six times, Greinke took the ball, pitched seven or eight innings and gave up one run, or zero runs, and the Royals still lost.

So it’s easy to imagine a scenario where Greinke would have won many more games. Had Greinke pitched on a team that could consistently score more than two runs, had the Royals had more than one reliable relief pitcher to back him up, and had he had more than one above-average fielder playing the field behind him, for example.

Greinke realized he only had one guy behind him who knew how to catch the ball, so he would intentionally pitch in such a way as to make them more likely to hit a fly ball to wherever David DeJesus was playing, usually left field.

Lince*censored*suffered from less bad luck than Greinke did, but still won his 15 games while pitching for a weaker team than the Cardinals.

According to Baseball-Reference.com, pitching for a team with average offense, Lince*censored*and Greinke each would have won 18 games. Under the same normalized conditions, Carpenter would have won 15, and Wainwright would have won 17.

Both pitchers had good years, and admittedly they played for a team that had problems. But Tim Lince*censored*pitched for a team with even bigger problems.

I see the words "which pitcher gave their team the best chance to win every fifth day" thrown around by St. Louis fans a lot. The answer, when you normalize the statistics, is Lincecum.

Or, to look at it another way: Carpenter’s and Wainwright’s win totals showcase just how good Albert Pujols is.

The case for Tim Lince*censored*was less clear than the case for Greinke, and that was why the vote ended up being so close.

But it’s obvious to me that the voters got it right in both cases. And that’s good.

Twenty five years ago, it wasn’t as easy to go much deeper than conventional statistics like wins, losses, and ERA. Today it’s simple, so there’s minimal excuse to pay attention to them.

Pale Divine: St. Louis’ biggest band

Pale Divine: St. Louis’ biggest band

“[Pale Divine singer Michael Schaerer’s] life didn’t turn out the way fans expected, but chances are neither did theirs.” Perhaps nothing sums up Pale Divine, St. Louis’ biggest band in 1991, better than that line from the December 21, 2008 issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

In the early 1990s, Michael Schaerer was the frontman for Pale Divine, a local band on the verge of breaking onto the national scene. They played sold-out shows on Laclede’s Landing, they had a record deal with Atlantic Records, and the radio stations even played some of their stuff sometimes. And then they broke up before they could finish a second album. For years, Schearer got solo gigs playing cover tunes, though he’s raised his profile in recent times. His former bandmate, guitarist Richard Fortus, is in Guns ‘n Roses. But maybe I’m getting ahead of myself.

Read more

The death of Lyman Bostock

The death of Lyman Bostock

In September 1978, the death of Lyman Bostock rattled the California Angels’ heated division title race with the Kansas City Royals. The Angels’ star outfielder was murdered in Gary, Indiana at the age of 27.

ESPN has a tribute.

He’s the best baseball player you’ve never heard of, and quite possibly also the greatest human being you never heard of.

Read more

My hot water heater: 1984-2008

I think my hot water heater died today. I thought my shower seemed colder than usual today, and in the late afternoon my wife reported no hot water in the kitchen.

It could be something simple, but even if it is, it’s time.Let’s consider this. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was president. The Kansas City Royals went to the playoffs. The big name in video games was Atari. People were predicting that video game consoles had no future. The big names in personal computers were (alphabetically) Apple, Commodore, IBM, and Radio Shack. Only one is still in that business. It was the year that Chrysler popularized the minivan. It was the year Apple introduced the Macintosh, popularizing the graphical interface and the mouse. Not only did MTV still play videos, but that was all they played. Not every home had a VCR. For that matter, not every home had a microwave. It cost 20 cents to mail a letter, and on average, a gallon of gas cost $1.21. (I remember it being a lot less than that in Missouri.)

The world that built that hot water heater is a lot different from the world we live in today.

About four years ago, a plumber came out to work on it. It was giving me problems then, but under the conditions of my home warranty, he had to bubblegum it back together. I asked how long it had. He said its realistic life expectancy was about 12 years, so it was about 8 years beyond that. It could last another six months, but it could last years.

So now the question is what to replace it with. The stingy Scottish miser in me sees tankless water heaters claiming to save you $150 a year and really likes that. I went to Lowe’s this evening and tried to buy one. There were several reasons why I don’t own one right now.

First, they don’t keep very many in stock. They had exactly one, even though their website said they had two of two different models. The one they had wasn’t the model I really wanted.

Two, they don’t install them. They’ll sell one to you, but then you have to find someone to install it on your own.

Three, they cost more to install than a conventional tank heater. Sometimes as much as the heater itself.

And then I found a controversial column that did the math, and said that a tankless heater might not actually save you any money anyway. I can’t find fault with his logic.

One thing I noticed is that the tankless heaters that the big-box stores sell are 85% efficient. The tank heaters are 76% efficient. The propaganda for the tankless heaters always assumes lower efficiency than that. As best I can tell, the heater I have is 67%, a little lower than the literature assumes.

So it seems to me that if a tankless heater that’s 18% more efficient than what I have now will save me $100-$150 a year, then a conventional heater that’s 76% efficient ought to save me $50-$75 per year, right?

The tank heaters sell for around $320, and installation is about $260. By the time you pay for taxes and the nickel-and-dime extras, it’s $600-$700.

Half the savings for 1/3 the price sounds pretty good. And I can buy one pretty much anywhere and have it installed tomorrow if I make the purchase before noon.

And it will pay for itself in 8-12 years. A tankless heater would pay for itself in about 13, if all the claims are true. If I make a mistake today, either way I go I’ll be likely to be revisiting it in about 12 years anyway. By then, tankless heaters will be more common and probably cost less than they do now (adjusting for inflation of course).

I’ll call the plumber who bubblegummed my old unit back together in the morning. Depending on what he says about the cost of installing a tankless heater, I’ll make a decision. But at this point, I think I’m leaning towards buying the most energy efficient conventional heater I can find.

Fathers: Give your family a gift this Father’s Day weekend

I’m sitting here watching NBC’s tribute to Tim Russert tonight. Although he was famous for being the biggest political guru of his generation, he was also the author of two books, both about fatherhood.

He died today of a heart attack. He was only 58.

I would have liked to have asked my dad what to do to minimize the risk of heart attack. Being a doctor, he should know. But I can’t. He died of a heart attack in 1994, age 51.I think I know what Dad would say, although he would say it with a whole lot more authority, having four degrees and the title "D.O." to his name.

I’m sure Dad would point out that not all of the factors are within our control. The best we can do is control the factors that we can control. (Not that he did, sadly.)

I don’t know much about medicine (Dad didn’t want me to be a doctor, and honestly, I never had much interest), but I know plenty about controlling the factors we can, in hopes of minimizing the factors we can’t.

But diet is a big factor, and we can control it. We can (and should) eat foods lower in cholesterol. We can (and should) avoid hydrogenated oils as much as possible. And we can (and should) eat foods that seem to lower cholesterol, such as oatmeal. Soy is also rumored to lower cholesterol, but the question is whether it actually lowers cholesterol, or if it merely replaces lots of foods that are high in cholesterol.

So, here’s the gift I want fathers to give their families this week. Start eating oatmeal for breakfast at least a couple of times a week. And if you’re really ambitious, eat fake soy meat a couple of times a week instead of the real thing.

Trust me on this one. I’m a red-blooded, beef-eating Kansas City native. I grew up on the stuff. Eight years ago I gave up meat for Lent, mostly because it was something that seemed possible but extremely difficult to do. I wanted to see if I could do it. So I did it–barely. Then I went out for BBQ afterward.

Back then, I tried soy burgers. I wasn’t impressed. Trust me. They’re better now. If you don’t like one brand, try another, but my favorites are the Boca Flame Grilled. Soy bacon is good too. It doesn’t look a thing like the real stuff, but it tastes fine.

If there’s a relatively minor and tolerable adjustment that we can make to potentially increase the number of our years, and almost certainly increase the quality of those years, shouldn’t we do it?

And now, a few words about the first-place Kansas City Royals

I don’t think I’ve been able to write those words since 2003, so I’d better use them when I can.

This team has been making me eat my words almost non-stop since 1986. Aside from briefly recapturing the magic in the summer of ’03, the only highlights I can think of revolve around the twilight of George Brett’s career. Kids born the year Brett retired are eligible to get their learner’s permits this year.No, I don’t expect the Royals to win it all this year. But this year is encouraging on a lot of levels.

One, they’re stealing bases successfully. They’ve run into a lot of outs in recent years, and the way you win when you don’t have a lineup full of big boppers like New York or Detroit is to run a lot, whether it’s taking the extra base on hits, or outright stealing the base. And when you draw a lot of throws, you encourage errors. Today’s game was an example: They stole five bases off weak-armed Jorge Posada, all but forcing the Yankees to replace him with Jose Molina. Molina takes the running game away, but can the Yankees afford to go without Posada’s bat? The Yankees didn’t have to worry about that last year.

Two, the pitching is holding up. Last year, pitching was the Royals’ bright spot. The bullpen was lights-out and Gil Meche and Brian Bannister emerged as quality starting pitchers. Bullpen standouts Zack Greinke and David Riske are gone (Greinke to the rotation; Riske to the Brewers), but so far the bullpen has been spectacular, and the starting pitching excellent. Perhaps even more importantly, the pitching’s good enough that they don’t have to rush their young arms and they can let them develop as needed. The Royals have a history of destroying young pitchers, and maybe that can change starting this year.

Three, every game has been close. The Royals of Buddy Bell and Tony Pena and Tony Loser, er, Muser didn’t win close games, and they didn’t have a lot of close games either. They’re hanging in there every game, holding tight leads, battling back at times, and generally playing sound baseball. At times in recent years I haven’t been able to watch, because it didn’t look like the teams had any heart. This year I haven’t been able to watch any games yet, but they make me want to.

Four, this team’s best is yet to come. Nobody knows yet exactly what kind of player Mark Teahen will be, but he has the potential to be anything from a leadoff hitter to a Ryne Sandberg to a George Brett. The Royals would prefer one of the latter two because they need some power, but even if he turns into a leadoff hitter, that’s OK. Alex Gordon is an exciting young player who can play spectacular third base defense, steal bases, and hit 420-foot home runs. He’s going to be the best all-around player the Royals have developed since Carlos Beltran. Billy Butler doesn’t know what to do with a glove in his hand and he runs like a catcher, but he can hit for average and power. The Royals really need a couple more bats to be competitive, but they have some in the minors (Mike Moustakas is going to be the best of them). The Royals haven’t had a trio like these three since Carlos Beltran, Jermaine Dye and Mike Sweeney. This trio is younger, will have better bats in front and behind them, and most importantly, now the Royals are in position to be able to afford to keep them.

Five, new manager Trey Hillman doesn’t look like a moron. He says the right things. So far his team is doing all of the things he stresses except take a lot of walks (and it’s still early). I tried to be optimistic about Buddy Bell because a team of nine players like Buddy Bell was stands to be a good team, and much better than a team of nine Tony Penas, while either of those is far better than a team of nine Tony Musers–I think a team of nine of me beats nine Tony Musers. But none of these managers had any clue about tactics. I don’t think the Royals have had a good tactical manager since Dick Howser, and he died in 1986. But so far, Hillman seems to have good tactics.

Six, so far the Royals have a winning record against teams everyone expected to be better than them. Minnesota is still a good young team with a lot of talent, Detroit was expected to run away with the division, and the Yankees are the Yankees–their four regular infielders make more than the Royals’ entire payroll.

I’m happy. I’ll be happier if this group gels like the Royals of the late ’70s did. In reality, 1985 was just the swan song of those great ’70s teams that never quite went all the way, and they’ve never had a core like that since. Injuries kept Bo Jackson and Danny Tartabull and Kevin Seitzer from reaching their potential, and the Royals couldn’t afford to keep Johnny Damon, Carlos Beltran, Jermaine Dye, and Mike Sweeney together. Imagine if they could have.

But it looks like it’s possible that David DeJesus, Mark Teahen, Alex Gordon, Billy Butler, and later Mike Moustakas will let us forget about all that. And that will be fun to watch develop.

So I’m willing to be patient. And I’ll enjoy the winning while it lasts.

Confessions of a \"child man\"

I read an editorial about the “child man” phenomenon and it made me mad.

I fit those stereotypes, spending most of my 20s living in an apartment surrounded by toys, in somewhat social isolation, when I was supposed to be “growing up,” taking responsibility, (whatever those two things mean), getting married, and pumping out kids. I even had people telling me this back in that era.

Believe me, I wasn’t living this way by choice. And it wasn’t for lack of trying that I was stuck there.I did date some girls after college. Notice I call them girls–it was appropriate. The first relationship started just a few months after I graduated. For worse and for better, she became one of the most influential people in my life, and sometimes that influence still lingers even though it’s been nearly a decade since the last time we spoke to one another.

Marriage material? No way, although you couldn’t convince me of that when I was 23. If you asked me then, she had it all: reasonably good looks, sky-high intelligence, and she and I could talk for hours about any number of different things. Ask me now, and there were problems, most of which had to do with maturity: She knew everything (just ask her); she had a very difficult time accepting me for who I was, flaws and virtues; her self-righteousness got on my nerves; and perhaps most importantly, she was still in school while I’d started my career, and she couldn’t relate to the demands my employer was putting on me, or to the difficulty I was having adjusting to those demands.

She also said I had a drinking problem. Yes, at the time I was drinking more heavily than I ever had before or since, but I was having two or three drinks a week, never more than one per day, and I never drank alone. Since alcoholism runs in my family, it wasn’t the smartest thing for me to be doing, but the quantities were small enough that I wasn’t hurting anything either. I know because nothing weird happened when I stopped.

Actually, there was one other problem. At church a few months after she and I had broken up, I asked three middle-aged men what I needed to be looking for, because I didn’t know. Dwight, perhaps the wisest of the three, spoke up first. He said to look for sexual attractiveness because you’re going to look for that anyway, and for someone your family approves of because they’re going to have to interact for a very long time, and for someone you would trust to raise your children correctly if something were to happen to you.

Dwight’s advice was so concise and brilliant that neither of the other two said much of anything except that they agreed with Dwight.

Everyone else had always given me a much longer list, and what was messing me up was that this girl was tailor-made for those longer lists. But she only went one for three on Dwight’s list. My family resented the way she controlled me and didn’t let me be myself, and I totally wouldn’t trust her to raise my kids because she would homeschool them and they wouldn’t know how to deal with people–just like her.

And as for the attractiveness, let’s just say she wasn’t worth being shallow for, and leave it at that.

So Dwight set me on the right path at 23. I knew what to look for. The trouble was finding it. As far as girls my own age, there was only one who went to my church. She and I had gone to high school together. We got along fine, but it never seemed like we had much in common. There were plenty of girls in high school, but whenever 23-year-olds had tried to date my younger sister, I always looked down on them. And when I tried dating someone still in college, we had trouble relating. Wouldn’t it be worse with someone who was still in high school?

So I got a new job in St. Louis and moved there. I needed that break anyway. By that time the ex had graduated, met someone else and was all but engaged (she was in a hurry), and had left town, but Columbia still felt like it was half hers. I needed to go either to Kansas City or St. Louis, because either of those would be mine. I had more connections in St. Louis and that helped me get a job, so I landed there.

And? Well, there weren’t a lot of 23-year-old girls at my new church either. There were plenty where I worked, but they were almost all engaged or married. Those who weren’t had a lot of baggage and nothing ever happened.

So to fill up the empty apartment, I spent most of age 24 writing and publishing a book. I’d say that took a little bit of responsibility, and a lot of other things.

So I wasn’t meeting girls at church or at work. I needed to get out, right? Check out the bar scene or something! Well, wrong, because I know what kind of person you’ll probably get if you do that: someone a lot like the girl I dated when I was 28.

At 22, she was a lot younger than me. How’d she rate against Dwight’s rules? Reasonably attractive, although a slight downgrade from her predecessor. She seemed to get along fine with my family. Raising kids was the unknown. Two months in, I saw a potential problem–she was entirely too much into drinking and party living and had no interest in outgrowing it. (By then, I was down to a couple of drinks a year.) I held on for five more months, hoping that would change, and even trying to force a change. That didn’t work out so well. My friends told me I really needed to break up with her. They were right but I didn’t want to believe it just yet. It didn’t matter though, because she broke up with me first.

So there I was. Back on the market at 29.

The nice thing about 29, as opposed to 23, is that your range broadens. At that age, it’s perfectly OK to date someone 8, 9, even 10 years younger than you. And, like 23, you can date someone older than you too. Being alone again still stank, but at least at 29 I had more options than the last time around.

And this time I actually shopped around a bit. I read a book that tried to help you know in five dates or less if someone was worth pursuing and I guess it helped, but all I really needed was Dwight’s rules.

In this case, I knew about two weeks in how she’d do on #3. I got sick and missed some work. She took care of me. And all I could think was that if this was how she treated a guy she’d just met, what would she be like with her own flesh and blood? She met my family soon afterward and did fine. Mom really liked her. So that was it for rule #2. And #1 was a given, since there wouldn’t have been a second date if #1 hadn’t been OK.

So I got married at 31. I’ll be 33 when our first son is born. I guess we’ve had some ups and downs but my coworkers all complain about their wives more than I do.

If I’d done what these “man-boy” critics wanted me to do, I would have gotten married 10 years ago, wrecked my life, wrecked that girl’s life, and we would have made a really unpleasant environment for our kids. And then we would have been left with two unpleasant choices: Stay together for the kids and wreck their lives some more, or a really messy divorce and perhaps wreck her relationship with her family, who believe there’s basically no justifiable reason to divorce, ever.

I think I did the right thing by waiting. Not that I had much choice in the matter, but on some level at least I always knew what I was looking for. I suppose I could have made a mistake at 23 but even then I knew something wasn’t right, and I don’t think I would have actually gone through with it. The relationship at 28 was more of a long shot to end up becoming a bad marriage because of the alcohol. There was no point in all my hard work to avoid becoming an alcoholic if I turned around and married one.

I did the right thing for me, my wife, my son, and society. Those “man-boy” critics need to go do the right thing for society too, and just shut up.

Mark Littell: Playoff goat to YouTube star

It used to be that Mark Littell was known for two things: Giving up a walk-off home run to the Yankees’ Chris Chambliss in the 1976 playoffs (a la Brad Lidge), and being traded for Al Hrabosky.

I’m not sure if his new claim to fame is much better, but it’s humorous.

Read more