Does he care for my opinion that he is a cheater and a crybaby?

Of course, Kansas City has long been known as one of the most vicious media environments in the world, leading in part to the extremely short tenures of Royal managers such as Tony Muser. Muser, famously, was let go after just 748 games as the skipper in KC.
This is, of course, hilaripus. I had the "pleasure*" of living in KC for most of the Boone and Muser eras. Tony Muser's primary concern was 1B defense, presumably because that was his one redeeming feature as a player. Of course Muser was handicapped by a cheap front office and a so-so development organization but there was nothing that I ever saw that made me think that Muser was one of the top 30 (or 300) managers in organized baseball.

And of course, 748 games is 4 and a half years and is not really a short tenure.

For most sports figures in Kansas City, its something of a rite of passage to be ripped to shreds, often in a deeply demoralizing, extremely personaly manner, by the saber-toothed local columnist Joe Posnanski.
The only proper response to this is a big WTF.

* I'm not demeaning KC but the state of baseball as played in KC between 1996 and 2000.

#2, I think your sarcasm detector is turned off today.

748 games is 4 and a half years and is not really a short tenure.


These are the jokes.

I was out to Kaufman Stadium a few years ago, while visiting my in-laws. My brother-in-law is best friends with one of Rick Sutcliffe's best friends (Sutcliffe lives in the KC area), and he got us a pair of great seats for a game. So, the Royals predictably sucked most of the night, but entered the 9th inning down only a run.

The Royals load the bases with nobody out - there's no way they aren't scoring a run! Strikeout, 1-2-3 double play, game over. Awesome!

The stadium is very nice, but as a Red Sox fan, I was amazed at the lack of intensity from the fans. In March of 2006, a Red Sox-Orioles spring training game in early March - in the Orioles park in Ft. Lauderdale, several hours away from the Sox training camp home - had more intensity from Red Sox fans for the action than a regular-season game in KC.

Now we know what George Brett thinks. How about Buddy Biancalada?

So, to sum up: If a reporter has not managed a major league team, he should not criticize the manager of a major league team. After all, there are THIRTY major league clubs, so if the reporter had any clue about baseball, he'd have gotten a chance to manage by now.

On another note, what's up with those pants? Is Zubaz making a comeback?

Thanks, flournoy. I'll get it into the shop for its 100,000 post checkup.

I hope George applies this same principle to his old buddy Rush and tell him to shut up about Obama and Pelosi, since no one has ever elected Rush Limbaugh to public office.

I've never #### in my shoes either, so I'll keep my opinions on that to myself, too.

So, to sum up: If a reporter has not managed a major league team, he should not criticize the manager of a major league team. After all, there are THIRTY major league clubs, so if the reporter had any clue about baseball, he'd have gotten a chance to manage by now.

Ah, the famous Joe Morgan argument- "How can anyone who didn't play/manage/spend years in the game tell me, who did play/manage/spend years in the game tell me how the game is played?"

I hope George applies this same principle to his old buddy Rush and tell him to shut up about Obama and Pelosi, since no one has ever elected Rush Limbaugh to public office.

Sweet! I love it when politics are injected into every single subject! Love it! Keep up the great work!

The radio guys in KC are criticizing everything Hillman, even the way he ties his shoes (that's sarcasm Edmundo). That's why Brett went off. Plus he was probably drinking.

So, to sum up: If a reporter has not managed a major league team, he should not criticize the manager of a major league team. After all, there are THIRTY major league clubs, so if the reporter had any clue about baseball, he'd have gotten a chance to manage by now.

AND

Ah, the famous Joe Morgan argument- "How can anyone who didn't play/manage/spend years in the game tell me, who did play/manage/spend years in the game tell me how the game is played?"

Reporters are jealous sissies who sit on the sidelines thinking of ways to smear the athletes they secretly idolize. It's all the more poignant coming from a drunken red-faced buffoon wearing Mr. Wonderful pants.

The radio guys in KC are criticizing everything Hillman, even the way he ties his shoes (that's sarcasm Edmundo). That's why Brett went off. Plus he was probably drinking.

Well, to be fair, Trey wouldn't get criticized so much if he didn't do stupid things like put Kyle Farnsworth into tight games and pull his best two hitters from a tie game.

Brett is on the radio now with Keitzman, one of the guys that he called out. Says he kind of lost it, feel bad, but doesn't think the guys are being fair to Hillman.

Sounds like his real beef is how the sports media celebrated the firing of Chiefs GM Carl Peterson, George's close friend, than anything to do with Trey. Kietzman, if anything, has been Trey's biggest supporter.

Manager bashing does get really tiresome, though. It's another form of frontrunning -- a way to distance yourself from the losses.

The Royals are one game behind their Pythagorean record. They have a good coaching staff in place, and individual players are doing as well or better than expected. There's no good reason to bash the manager right now.

The Royals are one game behind their Pythagorean record. They have a good coaching staff in place, and individual players are doing as well or better than expected. There's no good reason to bash the manager right now.

Do you presume a team which loses more games in one season than its P-record suggests it should have was because of its manager or coaches? And the reverse: Do you presume a team which wins more games in one season than its P-record suggests it should have was because of its manager or coaches? I don't know if the evidence for that is clear. I think sabermetrics considers that good or bad luck, or unknown.

I don't know if I would believe the argument that deviation from Pythag is due to the manager, but I can see the logic and understand the gripe. But if you're arguing that Hillman has left wins on the field, aren't you saying that the Royals should be noticeably better than their Pythagorean record? If their record is about what it should be, what's there to blame Hillman for?