Game 46, Mariners at Royals

DMZ · May 27, 2007 at 10:21 am · Filed Under Game Threads 

Swwweeeeeeeeeeeeeep. Swwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

Washburn v Perez. Hot cha cha.

Mariners offer
CF-L Ichiro
DH-B Vidro (~7 VORP!)
RF-R Guillen
LF-L Ibanez
1B-R Sexson
3B-R Beltre
SS-R Betancourt
2B-R Lopez
C-R Burke

Kansas City’s lineup is a little wonky.
DH-R German
CF-L DeJesus
2B-R Grudzielanek
RF-L Teahan
LF-R Brown
C-R Buck
3B-L Gordon
1B-R Shealy
SS-R Pena

Brown hasn’t been hitting at all this year, and when he did, he was pretty much an AVG/OBP guy, but here he’s fifth. Their DH is batting leadoff, which is rare. Grudzie’s batting third – which in this lineup isn’t that unusual, but he’s not your normal #3 guy.

Q: How do you know your lineup sucks?
A: Mark Grudzielanek’s your best hitter.


234 Responses to “Game 46, Mariners at Royals”

  1. Joe Bag o' Doughnuts on May 27th, 2007 2:08 pm

    Sean Green would be better if we just gave him more playing time. Kind of like Willie.

  2. Jim Thomsen on May 27th, 2007 2:09 pm

    Are Emil Brown and Dee Brown the same player?

  3. IdahoInvader on May 27th, 2007 2:10 pm


    Good point since Willie could probably pitch as well as Green and Green could easily hit as effectively as Bloomy, lol

  4. theraven on May 27th, 2007 2:10 pm

    You know, I know there aren’t a lot of data to work with on Green, but have you looked at his GB to FB ratio?

  5. scraps on May 27th, 2007 2:11 pm

    Why was Emil Brown stealing? Was it indifference?

  6. fishiam on May 27th, 2007 2:12 pm

    How sweep it is!

  7. theraven on May 27th, 2007 2:12 pm

    #205: Might as well have been indifference, they weren’t holding him and they didn’t make a throw to 2nd.

  8. Jim Thomsen on May 27th, 2007 2:12 pm

    Does this count in the standings, since it wasn’t against a real baseball team?

  9. IdahoInvader on May 27th, 2007 2:13 pm

    If indifference is even considered for a scorekeeper, its probably another reason you don’t need your closer in there. Especially when he just pitched the day before and we have the team we’ll be chasing all year coming up tomorrow.

  10. Jim Thomsen on May 27th, 2007 2:14 pm

    I wonder if the Royals will be called out for “franchise indifference.”

  11. Joe Bag o' Doughnuts on May 27th, 2007 2:17 pm

    I live how Krueger said that Washburn came out today to “take names.”

    (and chew bubblegum, but presumably, he was all out of bubblegum.)

  12. Joe Bag o' Doughnuts on May 27th, 2007 2:17 pm

    er, love. It’s my laptop keyboard. Really.

  13. lemonverbena on May 27th, 2007 2:18 pm

    207: if that isn’t the definition of ‘defensive indifference’ then it’s a much more subjective call than i realized.
    210: haha! nice.

  14. marbledog on May 27th, 2007 2:29 pm

    I can … but I missed the chance to prove it against Marbledog this year.

    We’ll be back next year. With our ace of aces. Tell your boss he should start studying now.

  15. marbledog on May 27th, 2007 2:30 pm

    ^to Jim


  16. earinc on May 27th, 2007 2:48 pm

    I realize the last few games have skewed these numbers a bit, but as of today the M’s are averaging 4.84 runs a game, behind only Cleveland (5.65), Detroit (5.56), Boston (5.44), New York (5.29), and Texas (5.00) in the AL. Not bad. Let’s hope the momentum continues against the Angels! Go M’s!

  17. AuburnM on May 27th, 2007 2:53 pm

    For all you non-believers:

    Before we swept them KC had just won 2 of 3 from Cleveland, 2 of 3 from Colorado, and 3 of 4 from Oakland.

    Another quality start from someone other than Felix. We need a a 5th starter, but the rest of the rotation and the bullpen are performing very well right now.

    Ms now have the highest team BA in the AL, and the 7th highest OPS.

    This season might stay interesting for awhile.

  18. lemonverbena on May 27th, 2007 3:03 pm

    wild-card watch: M’s 4 games back.

    so, root for Cleveland and/or Detroit to come back to earth, and for the rest of the AL (other than BOS) to continue sucking. and for the California Los Angeles Angels of Disneyland to have their traditional summer meltdown, or course.

  19. theraven on May 27th, 2007 3:07 pm

    #218: And let’s not forget to root for Oakland to continue to do what they’ve been doing this year and not have their typical 2nd half streak of 20 wins in a row or whatever.

  20. Thom Jimsen on May 27th, 2007 3:38 pm

    Oakland may be on the Cust of a collapse.

  21. Slippery Elmer on May 27th, 2007 3:58 pm

    I missed the game (like any of you care,) but the postgame callers were all, “the M’s offense is coming around! And the pitching is, too!” Hold on there, Sparkies… Have you noticed who the M’s have been playing lately? Only the traditional two worst teams in the AL. I am an optimist of a large caliber, but I’m not sufficiently utopian to believe that their recent surge has very much more to do with the reduced level of competition. It’s awesome to see, but take it with a grain of salt, callers!

    #34, Jim Thomsen:
    Whoa, my in-laws are faculty at Auburn Adventist Academy. (I’ll bet they even taught you a thing or two.) Small state!

  22. Slippery Elmer on May 27th, 2007 3:59 pm

    with = with teamwide improvement than

  23. Thom Jimsen on May 27th, 2007 4:02 pm

    Were they the ones who caught me making out with Cindy Grogan in the bushes behind the swimming pool in the spring of 1981? Who rudely rousted me and got me put on a month of “social probation”?

    If so, the cold dish called revenge is still waiting to be served ….

  24. David* on May 27th, 2007 4:09 pm

    Cindy Grogan? Talk about the village bicycle.

  25. joser on May 27th, 2007 6:44 pm

    Hmmmm, Auburn in 1981…. you wouldn’t happen to have known an Andrea Bloedorn, either of you? Auburn HS in that timeframe.

  26. Thom Jimsen on May 27th, 2007 7:01 pm

    Nope, the schools didn’t mingle.

  27. Tak on May 27th, 2007 10:16 pm

    Angels have a relatively easy schedule for a while (over a month), it may be a longshot to hope for them to collapse.

  28. Slippery Elmer on May 27th, 2007 10:20 pm

    Actually, Thom/Jim, my inlaws joined AAA in ’86, I believe, so–thank goodness–they’re off the hook as far as your reprisal goes. On the other hand, if you’d like to blame them for influencing Bavasi, et. al, to sign Weaver and Ramirez, go right ahead. I’m pretty sure it was their idea.

  29. Typical Idiot Fan on May 28th, 2007 2:11 am

    At what point should we start talking about Joe Woerman, starting pitcher?

  30. NBarnes on May 28th, 2007 3:32 am

    It is totally confusing to me that this team has as strong an offense as it does.

  31. Typical Idiot Fan on May 28th, 2007 4:25 am

    4.8 runs per game vs Anaheim’s 4.6. The difference is really in the runs allowed area. Anaheim has allowed only 199 runs to score against them in 51 games, or 3.9 per game. Seattle has allowed 224 in 46 games, or 4.8 per game.

    Seattle RSPG – 4.8, RAPG – 4.8
    Anaheim RSPG – 4.6, RAPG – 3.9
    Oakland RSPG – 4.5, RAPG – 3.8
    Texas RSPG – 5.0, RAPG – 5.7

    By all logical reasoning, Oakland should be right there with Anaheim but they’re not. Oakland should probably improve in the W/L column soon enough as things start to even out. Seattle, meanwhile, is one big lefty bat and one good starting pitcher away from making some serious strides.

  32. Ralph Malph on May 28th, 2007 10:36 am

    The Mariners’ runs allowed figures are skewed upwards because of a month of Weaver, a month of no Baek, and three weeks (or whatever it was) of no Felix. They’ll do better. Unless they bring Bad Weaver back.

  33. Ralph Malph on May 28th, 2007 10:49 am

    Gotta point out a few things:

    Dave said last week (and I disagreed with him) that this road trip was critical to the M’s playoff chances. At the time, as I recall, their BP playoff odds were about 10%. They go 5-1 on the road trip and their playoff odds are now 24%. Maybe Dave was right. The next 3 are crucial, no doubt about it.

    For any Ichiro-doubters, he is 15th in the major leagues in VORP. Among M’s batters, Kenji is 2nd and — whoda thunk it — Vidro is 3rd.

    Willie’s VORP is -4.4. Richie is -4.3. Weaver’s is -21.6.

  34. AuburnM on May 28th, 2007 11:36 am

    It is only crucial that they avoid a sweep. 7 1/2 back would be a real hill to climb.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.