Royals vs. Chiefs

[Stevie Ray]

You want to know why the Royals have built an organization that is a 'legitimate' contender to win championships?
Well, it's because they have a regime that not only understands the most essential elements to success, but also acts upon it.

It's pitching/defense:

1. A starting rotation that logs innings.
2. A bullpen that shuts the door in late innings and shortens the game.
3. An athletic defense that catches the ball and saves runs.

This is the aspect of the game where the Royals can't afford to be content with mediocrity. Of course there is no blueprint to a championship, and nothing is ever guaranteed, but this maximizes their chances.

In football, the most essential element is the play/ability of the QB, and to a slightly lesser extent, the philosophy of the head coach (which is, in large part, dependent on the skill/ability of the QB).

Of course baseball and football are vastly different sports, but the principle of placing the highest priority on the quintessentials (respective to their particular sport/league) is very similar.

To put it bluntly, the Royals are where they are because they've focused their efforts there, while the Chiefs have not ..... and continue not to.

My love and passion for both teams, and both sports, is as equal as can possibly be.
But until the Chiefs do away with the philosophy of being content with mediocrity at the most important aspect of the game, I can't take them as a serious threat to bring a championship to KC.

Hope/Optimism is one thing -- Expectation is another.

[Stevie Ray]

The Pirates are not a losing team

Exactly.

16 of the Royals 31 series this season have been against winning teams.

I believe that actual post said something along the lines they are just above .500 against winning teams, losing against the up and coming teams and beating up on the very poor teams.

What you said was that the Royals are beating up on losing teams and going .500 vs. good teams.
Which is pretty much what all good MLB teams do.
Perhaps you don't quite get how baseball works.

So since the Pirates are not a very poor team they didn't beat up on them going 3-0 now did they.

LOL, what??
It's not easy to sweep any team in MLB; much less winning teams.

Remember, I am a Royals Fan.

Obviously a very casual one. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Stevie Ray]

The debate you started was who is the better oraganization and my comment was to come and talk to me in October to see where the Royals finish and where the Chiefs are at to make a fair comparison. Again the Chiefs have yet to practice for you to fairly judge the two.

What the Royals have done the past couple seasons is more than anything the Chiefs have done has recent history.

The Royals WILL be in the playoffs again in 2015. They're the best team in their league and have as good a chance as anyone of making it to the World Series.

The Chiefs have done next to nothing since 1994, and they don't warrant anywhere near comparative expectations as do the Royals going forward.

Thus, my point. It doesn't take more than 1 season of success to top the Chiefs.

[Stevie Ray]

I love the Chiefs owner. So looking at the organization today. The Chiefs win. No question.

LOL well that pretty much says it all.

All other debate is moot to you.

When your counter argument is a comparison of regular season win%, and the fact that you personally like one owner more than the other, well ..... yea, moot - not to mention unreasonable and ridiculous.

Thanks for playing.

[matthewschiefs]

[QUOTE=Seek;311081]

No we get it. It is an absurd argument. The Royals are the best team in the Truman Sports over the last year because they went to the world series. All other debate is moot to you. I still say the Owner for the Royals sucks donkey bawls. I love the Chiefs owner. So looking at the organization today. The Chiefs win. No question.

The Chiefs went 9-7 last year giving them a winning percentage of .563. The Royals were 89-73 a winning percentage of .549. The Chiefs were better in the regular season. Playoffs. Clearly the Royals win here.

This year Royals are 57-36 = .631 The Chiefs have yet to play. So lets wait until October.

You nailed it right here seek.

What doesn't fit his opinion is always a deflection or irrelevant

There are just some people who don't want an actual debate they just want to be told they're right

[doobs_05]

It just boils down to Roayls= made it to the world series. Chiefs= had 2 winning record seasons in a row.They both had pitiful years, laughing stock of their league and both have 1 title. This argument is kind of funny to me, Stevie Ray only wants to talk about the past few years but won't aknowledge that the chiefs are in a better state then they were a few years ago (11-5 vs an easy schedule in 2013, people thought we be below .500 in 2014 but they finished above). They only reason your argument works Stevie is because Royals went to the title game, they got hot at the right time. But it's also amusing because we are on a Chiefs forums and the majority will pick the chiefs. Stevie is right that the Royals had better success but comparing the two sports is apple and oranges. way to string 2 or 3 seasons together of some success with no title, here's your gold sticker

[doobs_05]

It's like the great one always said "if you ain't first, you're last"

[Stevie Ray]

Stevie Ray only wants to talk about the past few years but won't aknowledge that the chiefs are in a better state then they were a few years ago

Where are you getting this from? I can acknowledge that the Chiefs seem to be better off now that they were a few years ago, but I'm not arguing against that. What does it have to with whether or not they're in a better state than the Royals are right now?

They only reason your argument works Stevie is because Royals went to the title game, they got hot at the right time.

Name a baseball team that made it to the World Series that did NOT get hot at the right time?

But at least you're willing to acknowledge that my argument is valid - even if you're not totally on board with it. That's more than I can say for some here.

[Seek]

Exactly.

16 of the Royals 31 series this season have been against winning teams.



What you said was that the Royals are beating up on losing teams and going .500 vs. good teams.
Which is pretty much what all good MLB teams do.
Perhaps you don't quite get how baseball works.



LOL, what??
It's not easy to sweep any team in MLB; much less winning teams.



Obviously a very casual one. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I get how baseball works. yes the Royals are supposed to beat up on the bad team. They have been and I love every minute of it. However, my argument was talk to me in October beating up bad teams does not guarantee them a World Series Ring. It does not even mean they make it past the first round of the play offs. Look at the Angels just last year as an example. Worl Series favorites and they got swept by a hotter team.

Yes I am a casual Royals Fan. You want to know why. I am 39. I was 9 the last time the Royals did anything to spark my interest. They have been losers for 30 years until last year. Talk to me about history. Blah.. You are a band wagon fan riding one single season over years of success from the Chiefs including winning season the last two years which matches the same history as the Royals just in the last two years. I am extremely excited for the Royals. It has been a long time waiting. My kids can actually cheer for the Royals over the T-Bones now and it looks great for this season and next and I can't wait to see how it plays out.

But the Chiefs have yet to play. I can't wait to see how their season unfolds either.

And, if you really love the Glass Family over the Hunts. I will put you on ignore right now as you are clueless and anything you say after that will sound like the peanuts teacher. Wah Wah Wahhhh.

[Stevie Ray]

Stevie is right that the Royals had better success but comparing the two sports is apple and oranges.

Again, kudos to you. You may not agree, but at least you're reasonable. We can't have a productive conversation/debate if participants aren't at least willing to set our biases aside and be intellectually honest. I can appreciate that.

As for comparing apples and oranges, I couldn't agree more. The point wasn't to make a direct comparison of the two sports, but rather a comparison of the working philosophy of the two franchises. One has made a concerted effort to focus it's resources on the aspect of the sport that most lends to success on the field respective to their sport -- the other continues to settle for, and commit to, mediocrity in the aspect of their sport that most lends to success on the field in their sport.

[Stevie Ray]

I get how baseball works.

If you did, you wouldn't think that a comparison of win% for a football vs. that of a baseball team is a valid talking point. It's ridiculous. Baseball is 162 games and it's played every day. 90 wins in baseball virtually assures you a division title and playoff berth. But a 90 win season is a lesser win% than the Chiefs 9-7 record last year. A baseball team would need to win at least 92 games to have a better win% than the Chiefs did last year, but in football, 9-7 is basically average.

You can't use regular season win%, and you definitely can't use "I personally like thier owner better" ...... and expect it to be taken as a legitimate counter-point. It's weak, inane even.