| DJ's left nut |
05-22-2018 12:42 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Bundy
(Post 13564744)
Cardinals in the 70's
81 loss average.
Royals in the 2000's.
95 loss avg.
You don't know squat about watching shitty baseball.
|
Yeah, the Cardinals have had some periods of spotty, mediocre baseball to be sure.
But I don't think there's a franchise in baseball HISTORY that can hang with the Royals over that 15 year span starting around 1999. Worse still, while we don't know exactly what the future holds, but we can all pretty safely state that the next 3 years are going to provide a lot of shitty baseball in KC. Their high minors are just barren. So from about 1997 through 2021 they're going to have a 25 year stretch where they'll average 90 losses in all likelihood. Or get damn close.
Worse still, they'll have a 5 year period in there of damn good ball. Which means that for the other 20 years they'll probably average near 95 losses.
Don't try to get in a suck-contest with the Royals. Nobody sucks like they sucked. Even when the Cardinals are 'bad' their problem isn't that they're bad, it's that they're boring and mediocre. The last 2 years have been case studies in winning half your games while not being even the slightest bit entertaining to watch. That's not bad - that's bland. I'd say the 2012 and 2016 Royals were worse than the 16 and 17 Cardinals but played a far more entertaining brand of baseball.
The Cardinals haven't sucked; they've just been pretty forgettable of late. That's still more than enough to beat bad teams. Over the course of their 6 games, the Cardinals should be pissed if they don't win 4 and frankly they should be a little disappointed if they don't win 5. Wednesday should be the only game where they give the Royals even the slightest inkling of life and even then they should come out on top. That's a bad baseball team. |
*****Official Royals @ Cardinals 5/21*****
(https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=315474)