Now on OTL.. why the royals suck

This oughta be interesting.

 

They brought up the Dye-Damon-Beltran outfield ... I still have the souvenir cup from the K. :'(

 

Yeah, they suck so much they bitch-slapped my fucking Jays last night....

 

And took two of three from the Twinkies (shoulda been a sweep), two of three from The Best Fans in Baseball, two of three from Milwaukee and Houston, and here's the real kicker ... they SWEPT Pittsburgh.

Royals suck yes, but hey a few wins sure makes me feel a whole lot better. 

 

I just thought I'd point out that since June 14 the Royals are 15-7. If they keep that pace up the rest of the season they would finish 83-81. That said, I fully expect a double-digit losing streak anytime now.

 

Hopefully that happens right after the All-Star break. ;D

 

Tonights AP story (at least first four graphs)

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- The Kansas City Royals are no longer the laughingstock of the major leagues.

Luke Hudson allowed one run in five innings in his first start of the season and John Buck and Matt Stairs homered to lead the Royals to their fourth straight victory, 13-3 over the Toronto Blue Jays on Friday night.

David DeJesus and Doug Mientkiewicz each had three hits and drove in three runs for Kansas City.

The Royals, who lost 47 of their first 63 games, are 14-6 over the past 20 games and the winning streak matches their longest of the season. The Blue Jays have lost five of six.


--- Can someone explain that two weeks of winning does NOT erase decades of losing.

 

Decades?

1969-1979: Royals win three AL West titles, compete for championships in 1973, 1975, 1979.

1980-1989: Royals win three AL West titles (plus play in playoffs in strike-shortened 1981 season), two AL pennants and one World Series. Finished second to Minnesota by two games in 1987.

1990-1994: Three winning records, plus in the hunt for the wild card and AL Central title in 1994 when season called off.

1995-2004: Decade of sadness. One winning record but was in contention for Central title until final week.

2005-2006: More sadness.

Tell me, how exactly where the Royals had multiple decades of losing? Because they've had three 100-loss seasons in four years? Because they haven't been to the playoffs since 1985?

 

Before I posted, I checked my number's and saw what you were talking about.

Granted, not every season has been a losing season, but their record over the past 20 seasons speaks for itself.

Record since 1985 - 1552-1779. That is a .465 winning percentage which obviously is a losing record over the past two decades.

They have had their bright spots i.e. 1985 but have only finished in second place twice since then, and one time they had a losing record doing so (1995 - 70-74,but the Indians were 100-44 in first place) and they have finished in last place 8 times since 1985.

My point of the entire post wasn't to pour salt into the wounds of KC, I just didn't agree with the lede. When does two weeks of winning erase the first three months of losing? They still have a losing record, but I guess now because they don't have the worst record in baseball they are no longer the laughingstocks of baseball, that belongs to Pittsburgh.

 

It doesn't. But a losing tradition since 1995 is hardly "decades."

 

I went back to 1985. Since they won the World Series, and even included that year in my numbers. If I remember correctly, OTL went back 20 seasons as well saying the most college kids these days wouldn't think of the Royals as a winning franchise. I'm sure you can add up a number of teams over the past 20 years and they would have sub .500 records, but that doesn't mean they are a losing franchise. It just so happens the Royals haven't done anything since 1985. No 1st place finishes, no playoffs. Not even a 2nd place finish (minus 1995) since 1989.

 

Yes, you put that in your previous post. But that's misleading info ...

1995-2005 -- 749-1,011 (.426)
1986-1994 -- 712-697 (.505)

... The nine seasons after the World Series weren't that bad, especially with a 92-70 season in 1989 but finishing seven games behind the A's. In fact, they had only three losing seasons in that span.

Those nine seasons hardly qualify as "laughingstock" numbers. They failed to win pennants, but then it's not as if they failed to compete.

You might want to look a little more closely before you base an opinion around numbers.