I'm right. You're wrong.

Point of contention: Is NASCAR a sport?

MM: As one who used to make fun of Nascar, I can appreciate the simplistic notions of sport which require a ball and a bunch of guys running around. Nascar is for the educated masses, a higher standard of living, those with a 21st century mentality. It’s not for everybody anymore than MENSA is. If you qualify as a fan, you understand why others don’t. It’s just the way it is.

BD: That doesn't make it a sport. I'm sure NASCAR has some sort of magic, mystical quality that outsiders just don't get. To me, it looks like a bunch of people driving around at speeds illegal in every state except Montana. What have you got against MENSA?

MM: Nascar is the second most popular sport in the US by television ratings. It has 17 of the top 20 attended sporting events. The fans are the most brand-loyal and advertisers love us.

BD: People watch American Idol, too. Doesn't make it a sport.

MM: It’s common opinion by the less informed to object to the amount of physical exertion put out by the drivers… “It’s not a sport because all you have to do is turn left”. Anyone who knows the sport recognizes the drivers are in peak physical shape. Do they have the endurance of an NBA point guard? Maybe so, maybe no. But, how much physical effort is required for a first baseman or a back up power forward or full-back on a pass-happy team? Drivers have to endure 4 consecutive hours of 100+ degree conditions all the while maintaining the highest level of mental acuity. No time outs. No halftime. No free throws. No huddles. No seventh inning stretch.

BD: All qualities suburbanites can relate to, thanks to their monstrous daily commutes. Look, I can type a column of numbers into a spreadsheet faster than the eye can follow. I almost never misstype and, when I do, I immediately know it based strictly on feel. It's impressive to watch. It should be an Olympic sport. Look, I'm not saying what those drivers do isn't impressive. But let's face it, the real athletes in that venue are the cars.

MM: When the drivers make a mistake, they don’t suffer the indignity having a play called back or having to sit in the penalty box or just another personal foul. No, they risk the big penalty – death. And, it doesn’t even have to be their mistake. Nascar is exciting not only because of the extreme risks, but also the rewards. When you win, you didn’t beat one person or one team. You endured, outlasted and outsmarted the competition… all 42 of them.

BD: And your tires didn't burst or your spark plugs kept sparking or something. If they got out of their cars and RAN around those tracks, then we'd be onto something.

A Few Royal Highs

WINNING STREAKS

By winning against St. Louis today, Kansas City swept their first road interleague series in history. The were 0-34. On the flip side it was the first sweep the Cardinals have suffered this season.

The five game winning streak the Royals are in is tied with several others for their longest since their start in 2003. That's right. It was over five years ago when Kansas City last won six straight. That streak actually went to nine.

More impressive is that all five have been won on the road. The last time the Royals won as many as six consecutive games on the road was in 1999. They will have a chance to match that streak on June 30th in Baltimore.

HOME RUNS

The team has now hit 25 home runs in the last 18 games. That's 1.39 per game. In the prior 55 games, they hit only 26 (.473 per game). For the season, they have .699 home runs per game.

Shown are the best ratios of home runs per game in KC's history. FYI, the all-time record is Seattle in 1997 (1.63, 264 home runs, 162 games).

Season	HR/G
1987	1.037
2005	1.000
1997	.981
1985	.951
2001	.938
1999	.938
2000	.926
2004	.926
WORST
1976	.401

SAVES

Joakim Soria picked up his 18th save. That would project out to 40 for the season and would rank fourth all-time for the Royals. An even better stat is the ratio of saves per games-won. Soria has 18 saves. The Royals have 31 wins. Soria's save to games-won ratio is .581 (18/31). If he maintained that ratio, it would rank #1 in Kansas City history.

Player	Year	Ratio
Joakim Soria	2008	.581
Dan Quisenberry	1983	.570
Jeff Montgomery	1992	.542
Jeff Montgomery	1993	.536
Dan Quisenberry	1984	.524
Jeff Montgomery	1998	.500
NEXT CLOSEST		.443

How does Pierce compare as a Celtic

Now that Paul Pierce has been in Boston ten years, it's appropriate to evaluate him in terms of other great Celtics from the past. Of course, with only one championship, he can't begin to compare with most of them on that score - after all, Boston has won 17 NBA titles. However, purely based on stats, Pierce is among the best.

He ranks #1 in three-pointers, #3 in free throws, #4 in NBA Efficiency and #5 in defensive rebounds. A more visible stat is scoring. His scoring average as a Celtic ranks second only to Larry Bird - and even then, not by a lot. This is especially noteworthy considering the Celtics have averaged significantly less ppg during Pierce's career than during Bird's. Of course, it is important to also recognize that after 10 years, his average will almost certainly begin dropping.

Shown below are the all-time top Celtic regular season scorers per game (minimum 8 seasons).

Player	Seasons	PPG
Larry Bird	13	24.3
Paul Pierce	10	23.1
John Havlicek	16	20.8
Antoine Walker	8	20.6
Tommy Heinsohn	9	18.6
Bob Cousy	13	18.5
Jo Jo White	10	18.4
Dave Cowens	10	18.2
Bill Sharman	10	18.1
Kevin McHale	13	17.9
Sam Jones	12	17.7
Robert Parish	14	16.5
Bill Russell	13	15.1

How does Pierce compare in the finals?

This is a comparison between Paul Pierce and other Celtic Finals MVPs. You have to keep one thing in mind. The NBA did not begin awarding a Finals MVP until 1969. The Celtics won 10 of the 11 championships prior to that season. Who knows who would have been the MVPs and what their stats would have been? One other interesting point is that the Celtics also won the championship in 1969, however that was the one (and only) time the MVP went to a player on the losing team (Jerry West, Los Angeles).

Using the NBA Efficiency Rating, Pierce's six games were... 21, 32, 0, 21, 33 and 20. This is an average EFF of 21.17. Shown below are all Celtic MVPs and their championship series EFF. All series were either six or seven games.

Year	MVP	EFF
1984	Larry Bird	34.14
1986	Larry Bird	33.67
1974	John Havlicek	24.29
1976	Jo Jo White	21.33
2008	Paul Pierce	21.17
1981	Cedric Maxwell	19.67

Just how good is a 39 point win?

As you know, the Celtics beat the snot out of the the Lakers tonight by 39 points (131-92). The first (obvious) question is whether it is an NBA Finals record margin of victory. It isn't. The record is 42 points in 1998 when Chicago embarrassed Utah 96-54. Boston did lead by 43 for a brief moment late in the game, but couldn't quite hold it.

The 39 points is, however, the largest margin for the NBA Finals final game. Shown below are the biggest blowouts in the last game of the season. As you can see, Boston is no stranger to ending the season on the highest of high notes.

Year	Teams	Margin
2008	Boston over Los Angeles	39
1965	Boston over Los Angeles	33
1949	Minneapolis over Washington	21
1960	Boston over St. Louis	19
1986	Boston over Houston	17
1952	Minneapolis over New York	17
1980	Los Angeles over Philadelphia	16
1968	Boston over Los Angeles	15
1974	Boston over Milwaukee	15
1950	Minneapolis over Syracuse	15

The second question is much more subtle. What are the emotions that allow for a blow-out of this nature? How does the home court factor in? What affect does coming off a loss have? I decided to go searching for nearly identical situations in previous NBA Finals.

The requirements are that a team jumps out to a 3-1 lead, loses game five on the road and comes home for game six. This is what happened with Boston in 2008 and what has happened to seven other teams in NBA history. As you can see, the home team has gone 8-0 and, with only one exception, none of the game sixes were close.

Year	Teams	Margin
2008	Boston over Los Angeles	39
1986	Boston over Houston	17
1948	Baltimore over Philadelphia	15
1950	Minnesota over Syracuse	15
1987	Los Angeles over Boston	13
1996	Chicago over Seattle	12
1982	Los Angeles over Philadelphia	12
2000	Los Angeles over Indiana	5

Slip Slidn' Away

What is the single common thread between the major Kansas City professional sports teams? If you guessed they have been stinkin' up the joint, you would be right.

I'm excluding the Brigade because they stunk from beginning to end, but what is disappointingly similar is how each of them began their most recent season and what came afterwards.

Yikes. It doesn't get much worse than this.

Team	Begin	End
Chiefs	4-3	0-9
Royals	21-22	7-20
Wizards	3-1-1	0-4-2
T-Bones	12-4	3-10
TOTALS	40-30-1	10-43-2

Golf for the ages

With the victory in the U.S. Open, Tiger Woods continued his incredible streak - that being never losing a major when he led or tied for the lead going into the final round. He is 14 for 14. What is almost as amazing is that he has never won a major when trailing going into the final round. And, that's 41 out of 41.

>> Woods has five second place finishes in majors, but trailed after 54 holes.
>> Only Hagan has a better ratio of wins to runner-ups.
>> After 13.5 seasons, Nicklaus had won 11 majors - three short of Woods.

Shown are the all-time leaders for most major championships. Woods continues to close the gap on Nicklaus, but will probably never come close to Jack's combined first and second total.

Player	Firsts	Seconds	Total
Jack Nicklaus	18	19	37
Tiger Woods	14	5	19
Walter Hagen	11	2	13
Ben Hogan	9	6	15
Gary Player	9	6	15
Tom Watson	8	7	15
Bobby Jones	7	4	11
Arnold Palmer	7	9	16
Gene Sarazen	7	3	10
Sam Snead	7	5	12
Nick Faldo	6	2	8
Lee Travino	6	2	8

The Fizzards

Here is what I want to know. When was the last time a professional team scored only four runs/goals in an eight game stretch? I wouldn't be shocked if it has never happened in baseball or hockey or even soccer... until now.

Yes, the lowly Wizards have reached this level of complete and utter offensive impotence. But, that's only half the story.

When was the last time a team was in first place after five weeks of the season and eventually found themselves in last? Surely that hasn't happened, has it? Well, it still hasn't. However, if San Jose had won tonight, Kansas City would have fizzled from first to worst in the same season. In mid April, the Wizards were 3-1-1 (10 points) and number one in the MSL. Two months later they have 3-5-3 record (12 points), next to last.

We've suffered a comlete collapse in the standings, but at least we got to see four goals in 12 hours of nail-biting intense action - the kind only soccer can provide.

Lakers bucking history

Zero for 24. That’s the number of times an NBA finalist team has come back from a 3-1 deficit to win the Championship. Can the Lakers do it? Odds are, obviously, slim.

Of course, miracle comebacks happen. In fact, even in the most recent game of the series, Boston came from 24 points behind – the biggest comeback victory in finals history. In game one, Los Angeles almost came from 24 points behind when they cut the lead to two.

Just because something has happened 24 times in a row doesn’t mean it will happen 25 times. KU had beaten KSU in Manhattan 24 straight, but that came to an end this past season. Football's version of a 24 game streak ended last season when Stanford shocked USC ending their PAC-10 winning streak. And, in the NBA, the longest losing streak of all-time is 24 by the Cavaliers in 1982. In fact, there has probably never been a streak of 24 anything in sports where the odds weren’t heavily in favor of it being 25. Still, 24 is one thing, 25 is something else. All streaks get broken sooner or later.

So, why should the Lakers be the first team to come back from a 3-1 deficit? It’s tough to make a case for it, but the reality is that if not for a miracle comeback by Boston in game four, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The Lakers still have the best player in the league; they have a coach who has won nine titles in ten tries; and they were the better team in the previous three rounds of the playoffs.

The downside is that of the 24 times a team led 3-1, they won game five and the series 13 times and lost 11. Worse, of those 11 times, the team with the 3-2 lead won game six ten times. That’s right. Of the 24 times an NBA team led 3-1 in the finals, they only went to game seven once – and that was over 40 years ago. In 1966, Boston also held a 3-1 lead over Los Angeles. The Lakers won games five and six. Game seven went to the wire with the Celtics holding off a late-charging Lakers squad - winning by two. The victory gave Boston their eighth consecutive championship – a feat never equaled in any sport before or since. One more bit of history... it was Red Auerbach’s last game.

Whitlock amiss on Garnett

This discussion won't be about whether or not Garnett has crashed the boards hard enough or taken too many outside shots in the finals. Someone else can debate that. I'm going to challenge the most important part of what Jason said in today's column.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Garnett started this championship series in the debate for the greatest power forward of all time. You could mention him in the same sentence with Tim Duncan, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Elvin Hayes.

Now, I'd put Garnett a cut ahead of Dirk Nowitzki and Dan Issel.

He's a 7-footer with too much skill.... He looks like the second coming of Ralph Sampson."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my objection. How does any 13-year veteran go from being in the debate for X level of greatness... and 3 games later (which his team leads 2-1, by the way) is being downgraded to Y level of greatness?

Garnett can EASILY be mentioned in the "same sentence with Tim Duncan, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Elvin Hayes". Frankly, there is little comparison between Garnett and Nowitzki or Issel - even if they are/were very good players. Furthermore, comparing him to Ralph Sampson is completely unfair. Simply put, Garnett is one of the top 25-30 players in NBA history.

Garnett, Duncan, Malone, Barkley all won at least one MVP trophy. Hayes, Nowitzki, Issel and Sampson did not. Except for Duncan, there are few titles among the group.

Shown below are the comparative stats between Garnett, Duncan, Malone, Barkley and Hayes. Even though Garnett more than holds his own in these comparisons, one category simply isn't measured at all here - defense. Garnett and Duncan have both been named to the All-Defensive first team seven times. Malone received that honor on three occasions. Neither Barkley or Hayes received such acclaim.

Player	PPG	RPG	APG	FG%	FT%	EFF*
Garnett	20.4	11.2	4.4	49.4	78.1	27.13
Duncan	21.6	11.8	3.1	50.8	68.4	26.59
Malone	25.0	10.1	3.6	51.6	74.2	26.94
Barkley	22.1	11.7	3.9	54.1	73.5	28.16
Hayes	21.0	12.5	1.8	45.2	67.0	23.29

In my opinion, Jason is basing a career upon a single game or a single series or a single playoff season. Garnett has participated in well over 1,000 games in 13 years. If he was one of the greatest power forwards of all time a week ago, guess what... he still is.

*EFF = NBA Efficiency Rating = [(Pts+Reb+Ast+Blk+Stl)-(TO+MissedFG+MissedFT)]/Games Played

KU football loses a pair

Two defensive contributors are no longer with the KU football squad. Defensive tackle Todd Haselhorst left voluntarily to tend to "personal matters." As someone who had many personal matters to attend to in college, I say good luck and I hope everything works out. Cornerback Anthony Webb was dismissed from the team for violating team policy. Naughty Jayhawk. Naughty, naughty Jayhawk. No word if a chalupa was involved.

We're talking HIGH SCHOOL, right?

Coming from a small town as I do, it still seems completely incongruent to see the term "recruiting" tied to high school athletics. But there is recruiting at the big-time programs and some shady activities have led the Missouri State High School Activities Association to strip St. Louis Vashon of three state basketball titles. Geesh, this never would have happened in Red Oak, Iowa. Though conference rival Harlan has had a ridiculously successful football program going back three decades, so you have to wonder...

The news means that Liberty and Kearney both will have a state title added to their respective dossiers -- on paper. I doubt that the players and coaches from those teams feel any more like state champions than they did yesterday. That's not to take anything away from those teams who both had tremendous seasons. But these kind of after-the-fact gestures just ring hollow, whether it's high school or college.

Celtics blow big opportunity

The Celtics had no right to be in a position to steal Tuesday's game three of the NBA Finals. They weren't shooting well, were committing too many turnovers and were battling a big deficit at the foul line.

That's what defense does for you, though. The Lakers were getting a solid individual effort from Kobe Bryant but Boston has effectively erased Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom from this series. Bryant has mostly been unable to lift up the play of his teammates and as a result, he's reverted to the Kobe of seasons past, where he takes over and leaves the others to watch.

Not his fault, though. The rest of the Lakers have been struggling all series. Sasha Vujacic stepped up with a huge game three performance and that gave LA enough offense to avoid falling into an inescapable 3-0 hole.

The Celtics had their chance, though, leading into the fourth quarter. I thought Doc Rivers blundered by not playing a better offensive unit down the stretch. The Lakers' offense had been reduced to Bryant and Vujacic but Boston was also struggling for points. Rivers should have maximized his offense, perhaps by using Sam Cassell instead of Rajon Rondo and Leon Powe instead of Kendrick Perkins. Then Rivers should have run more double teams at Bryant in the closing minutes.

Boston still has to feel pretty good right now. They almost one a game that Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce combined to go eight for 35. That won't happen again, not against the Lakers. Boston still has to be the favorite to win the series.

The T-Bones: Where the 2004 Royals go to die

Our old pal Ken Harvey is back in Kansas City. Luckily for Royals fans, there will be a state line and about 23 miles between Harvey and Kauffman Stadium.

Harvey has spent the last couple of years since the Royals gave up on him battling a string of injuries. He didn't play at all in 2006, had 35 at-bats in the Twins' farm system last year and had 21 at-bats for a team in Mexico this year.

Harvey is a nice guy, still only 30 years old, and he's not a hard guy to root for. Still, he was emblematic of the Allard Baird Royals, unable to sustain success, unable to plug major holes in his game. He skirted through the minors on the basis of tremendous batting averages. However all the secondary skills were lacking -- little power and no patience. He couldn't run and wasn't much of a fielder. Everything he did looked unorthodox and when he was going well, it was fun. When he wasn't going so good, however, it was painful to watch.

For Harvey to have any chance at getting back into affiliated baseball, he's got turn into more of a take-and-rake hitter. That means working the count and looking for inside pitches to turn on with the power stroke you'd expect a 240-pound first baseman to have. Unfortunately, if he hasn't shown these base skills by now, it's not likely he's going to.

For the T-Bones, however, it's a great move. If healthy, Harvey should almost certainly be one of the league's best hitters.

True measure of a great Home Run hitter

Ken Griffey Jr. hit his 600th home run tonight. He is only the sixth person to achieve that milestone and he is the second fastest to reach it. However interesting that may be, more noteworthy is the fact that he ranks 17th with respect to how many home runs he has hit over the number he should have hit ("expected"). This is really the only career home run stat that matters to me. "But, what does it mean - and how do you arrive at it?" Somehow, I knew you would ask.

You cannot fairly compare Jim Thome and Frank Thomas to Mel Ott and Jimmy Foxx. All four of them have slightly over 500 home runs, but if you leave it at that you are missing variables which are critical. In order to truly measure how great of a home run hitter someone was, you must factor in three essential ingredients - era, ballpark and at bats. Obviously, you can argue that at bats is a function of durability. Thus, the player should not be penalized. Well, I'm not. The more at-bats, the more home runs above what should be expected by all of the top players.

However, you must determine what "expected" is. I looked at every top home run hitter in history. I examined each season, what the ballpark rating was based on whether they hit right or left handed. I also factored in the average home run per at bat in the league in which they played. Based on the number of at bats they had that season, the hitter should have hit X home runs. They hit Y. Y minus X = home runs above expectations. Add each season they played and you have a career total.

Expected is nothing more than what the average player would have hit in any given park in any given year with any given number of at bats. Plug these bombers into that formula and they hit more than they should have in nearly every season.

Shown below are the true home run kings - not based on the absolute number they hit, but based upon how many they hit above what the average player in that park in that season with that number of at bats would have hit ... "expected". It's pretty clear who the best home run hitter of all time was. Ruth will never be passed in my opinion.

		Career	Should	Did	Above
	Player	Mid Point	Have Hit	Hit	Expected
1	Babe Ruth	1925	98.55	714	615.45
2	Barry Bonds	1996	257.75	762	504.25
3	Henry Aaron	1965	295.86	755	459.14
4	Mark McGwire	1994	175.51	583	407.49
5	Jimmy Foxx	1935	138.13	534	395.87
6	Willie Mays	1962	274.33	660	385.67
7	Ted Williams	1951	144.76	521	376.24
8	Mike Schmidt	1981	176.18	548	371.82
9	Lou Gehrig	1931	124.86	493	368.14
10	Harmon Killebrew	1965	209.78	573	363.22
11	Mel Ott	1937	150.21	511	360.79
12	Sammy Sosa	1998	264.28	609	344.72
13	Frank Robinson	1966	248.48	586	337.52
14	Willie McCovey	1970	183.99	521	337.01
15	Mickey Mantle	1960	205.78	536	330.22
16	Reggie Jackson	1977	235.99	563	327.01
17	Ken Griffey Jr.	1999	273.93	600	326.07	Active
18	Willie Stargell	1972	160.64	475	314.36
19	Eddie Mathews	1960	209.99	512	302.01
20	Jim Thome	1999	225.49	519	293.52	Active
21	Alex Rodriguez	2001	239.72	528	288.28	Active
22	Manny Ramirez	2000	229.88	504	274.12	Active
23	Ernie Banks	1962	239.21	512	272.79
24	Frank Thomas	1999	249.93	520	270.07	Active
25	Rafael Palmeiro	1996	309.54	569	259.46

Two Stat Correlation

ROYALS TWO STAT FORMULA

Of course, a person can create a long, complicated formula based on a variety of hitting, fielding and pitching statistics to correlate with winning. Who knows what the ideal formula is? However, I’m a strong believer in the basic idea of getting the most for the least. I’ll call it the 10-90 rule. For 10% of the trouble, you can get 90% of the benefit.

Such is the case, I think, in creating a formula which correlates well to winning for any MLB team. It would be an interesting challenge for anyone to come up with any two stats and combine them in such a way as to correlate the closest to winning and losing.

The most obvious is runs scored minus runs allowed. It would be tough – if not impossible – to improve on that. As Willie Wilson (who was one of the great run scorers of all-time) once said, “If you outscore your opponent, you have a pretty good chance of winning.” Tongues and cheeks aside, I’m willing to agree that in all probability, no two stats will correlate to winning as well as runs scored and runs allowed.

What two stats are second best? Well, for the sake of this discussion I’m going to choose [(Slugging % x 10) / ERA]. The reason I multiplied Slugging % times 10 is to provide a little statistical symmetry. As it turns out 1.000 isn’t far from an 81-81 record.

I have listed the 30 teams below in order based on this ratio for the 2007 season. As you can see, the higher the ratio (on average) the more wins.

It’s good to see that the team tied with the best record is #1 by the formula and the team with the worst record is last by the formula. Is it perfect. Nope. Is there a better two stat formula? Maybe. The one big exception with this stat is Seattle. They tied for the 9th best record, but rank #20 by the formula. Nevertheless, 14 of the winningest 15 (less Seattle) teams rank in the top 15 by the formula while the 14 worst teams ranked in the bottom 15 (Seattle is the only exception).

	Slg%
Team	x 10	ERA	Ratio	Wins
Boston	4.44	3.87	1.147	96
San Diego	4.11	3.7	1.111	89
Atlanta	4.35	4.11	1.058	84
Cleveland	4.28	4.05	1.057	96
Toronto	4.19	4.01	1.048	83
Chi. Cubs	4.22	4.04	1.045	85
Milwaukee	4.56	4.41	1.034	83
NY Yankees	4.63	4.49	1.031	94
NY Mets	4.32	4.26	1.014	88
Colorado	4.37	4.32	1.012	90
Detroit	4.58	4.57	1.002	88
Arizona	4.13	4.13	1.001	90
LA Angels	4.17	4.23	0.986	94
Philadelphia	4.58	4.73	0.968	89
LA Dodgers	4.06	4.21	0.967	82
Oakland	4.07	4.28	0.951	76
Minnesota	3.91	4.15	0.942	79
San Francisco	3.87	4.19	0.924	71
Florida	4.48	4.94	0.907	71
Seattle	4.25	4.73	0.898	88
Texas	4.26	4.75	0.897	75
Cincinnati	4.36	4.94	0.883	72
Houston	4.12	4.68	0.881	73
St. Louis	4.05	4.65	0.871	78
Kansas City	3.88	4.48	0.866	69
Washington	3.91	4.58	0.852	73
Chi. WS	4.04	4.77	0.847	72
Pittsburgh	4.11	4.93	0.833	68
Baltimore	4.12	5.17	0.797	69
Tampa Bay	4.33	5.53	0.783	66

Only the Royals

Jose Guillen tied a franchise record Saturday by becoming the 11th Royals player to drive in seven runs in a game. Guillen did nab one team record all to himself, though. His was the first seven-RBI game to come in a loss.

PLAYER	DATE	Opponent	Result
Jose Guillen	June 7, 2008	Yankees	L, 11-12
Mike Sweeney	July 22, 2004	Tigers	W, 13-7
Raul Ibanez	July 14, 2002	Angels	W, 12-3
Johnny Damon	August 10, 1996	Angles	W, 18-3
Bo Jackson	July 17, 1990	Yankees	W, 10-7
Kevin Seitzer	August 2, 1987	Red Sox	W, 13-5
Bo Jackson	April 14, 1987	Tigers	W, 10-1
Frank White	August 19, 1986	Rangers	W, 9-8
George Brett	April 20, 1983	Tigers	W, 8-7
Willie Aikens	September 30, 1982	Athletics	W, 11-4
Jerry Grote	June 3, 1981	Mariners	W, 12-9

Royals versus Royals

FUTILITY DIVISION
Through 60 games

Year	Record	Losses	GB
2002	24-36	100	--
2004	23-37	104	-1
2008	23-37	???	-1
2007	22-38	93	-2
2001	21-39	97	-3
2005	19-41	106	-5
2006	16-44	100	-8

Royals Impotency

As in unable to produce!

Royals Runs Scored & Slugging Pct

Shown below are all the Royals seasons except 1969-73. Not only were those expansion years, but they were in the dead ball era as well. It would be misleading to include them in these stats. Taking all Royals seasons since 1973, the 2008 club ranks last in runs scored (per 162 games) and tied for last in slugging percentage.

All runs and wins are based upon 162 games. The total games played differed from 162 in the following seasons: 2008 (59), 1999 (161), 1998 (161), 1997 (161), 1996 (161), 1995 (144), 1994 (115), 1990 (161), 1988 (161), 1983 (163), 1981 (103). Interestingly, the Royals had six seasons in a row when they failed to play 162 regular season games.

RUNS SCORED

Year Runs Slg% Wins
2008 593 .364 63
1992 610 .364 72
1981 624 .383 79
1986 654 .390 76
1974 -667 .364 77
1984 673 .399 84
1993 675 .397 84
1985 687 .401 91
1989 690 .373 92
1983 692 .397 79
2005 701 .396 56
2007 706 .388 69
1995 708 .396 79
1988 708 .391 85
1975 710 .394 91
1990 711 .395 75
1976 713 .371 90
1987 715 .412 83
1998 718 .399 72
2004 720 .397 58
1991 727 .394 82
2001 729 .409 65
2002 737 .398 62
1978 743 .399 92
1996 751 .398 75
1997 752 .407 67
1973 755 .381 88
2006 757 .411 62
1982 784 .428 90
1994 809 .419 90
1980 809 .413 97
1977 822 .436 102
2003 836 .427 83
1979 851 .422 85
1999 861 .433 64
2000 879 .425 77

SLUGGING PCT.

Year Runs Slg% Wins
2008 593 .364 63
1992 610 .364 72
1974 667 .364 77
1976 713 .371 90
1989 690 .373 92
1973 755 .381 88
1981 624 .383 79
2007 706 .388 69
1986 654 .390 76
1988 708 .391 85
1991 727 .394 82
1975 710 .394 91
1990 711 .395 75
2005 701 .396 56
1995 708 .396 79
2004 720 .397 58
1993 675 .397 84
1983 692 .397 79
2002 737 .398 62
1996 751 .398 75
1998 718 .399 72
1984 673 .399 84
1978 743 .399 92
1985 687 .401 91
1997 752 .407 67
2001 729 .409 65
2006 757 .411 62
1987 715 .412 83
1980 809 .413 97
1994 809 .419 90
1979 851 .422 85
2000 879 .425 77
2003 836 .427 83
1982 784 .428 90
1999 861 .433 64
1977 822 .436 102

Detroit Champions

With the Red Wings winning the Stanley Cup tonight, the city of Detroit has had 22 major sports championships.

Interestingly, in 1935-36, the city won the World Series, the NFL Championship and the Stanley Cup in succession - making them the reigning champion in each of the three sports. The NBA did not come into existence until the late 1940's. This is the only time a city has had as many as three champions at once. There have only been a handful of times when a city has had two champions at the same time.

Here are the four franchises and the years each team won the championship.

Red Wings (11): 1936, 1937, 1943, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008
Tigers (4): 1935, 1945, 1968, 1984
Lions (4): 1935, 1952, 1953, 1957
Pistons (3): 1989, 1990, 2004