Cincinnati Reds (23-43) at Kansas City Royals (22-44)
|Date & Time||Tuesday June 12, 2018, 8:15 PM (EDT)|
The Line: Kansas City Royals -121 / Cincinnati Reds +111 --- Over/Under: 9.5
Out at Kauffman Stadium on Tuesday, the Cincinnati Reds and the Kansas City Royals will be kicking off their MLB set.
The Reds just came off a series versus the Cardinals. After losing the first two games of that matchup, Cincinnati won Sunday 6-3.
For the Tuesday game, the Reds will be going with RHP Sal Romano. In his 65.0 innings and 3-7 record this year, Romano has a 6.23 ERA with 48 Ks and 30 BBs.
Tops in hitting this year for the Reds is Scooter Gennett, with 82 hits, 33 runs, 12 homers and 47 RBI. Second on the team is Joey Votto with 72 hits, 33 runs and 27 RBI to his name.
Over on the Royals’ side, they’re fresh off a series against the A’s. KC won on Saturday 2-0 but lost the other three games.
As for KC, they’re going with Ian Kennedy in the start on Tuesday. Across 65.2 innings and a 1-6 record this year, Kennedy has a 5.76 ERA with 62 Ks and 25 BBs.
As for the Royals, Whit Merrifield is sitting on 71 hits, 31 runs and 22 RBI right now, while Mike Moustakas has 68 hits, 31 runs and 22 RBI so far.
The Reds are 25-53 in their last 78 overall and 2-5 in their last seven road games. Cincinnati is also 3-9 in their last 12 Tuesday games and 1-4 in their last five in game one of a series.
Meanwhile, the Royals are 19-39 in their last 58 overall and 10-22 in their last 32 home games. KC is also 8-21 in their last 29 in game one of a series and 2-9 in their last 11 following an off day.
Romano has been pretty ugly lately, with a combined 27 earned runs over his last five starts. If there’s good news there, it’s that Romano has gone at least 5.0 innings in his most recent four. As for Kennedy, he gave up eight earned against the A’s on June 1, but in two of his last three starts he’s got three earned combined. I’m not thrilled with either pitcher or team here, but I’m giving the Royals a minor edge. The play here is probably the over, however.