Page 1 of 4
George Brett
Posted:
Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:31 pm
by andycummings65
The Kansas City Royals have been around since 1969---44 seasons.
Now, don't cheat....
How many winning seasons have the Royals had when George Brett was NOT on the roster?
Re: George Brett
Posted:
Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:37 pm
by bontomn
Probably about the same number as the Padres, who also came into being in 1969, have had without Tony Gwynn on the team.
Re: George Brett
Posted:
Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:46 pm
by andycummings65
Surprisingly, no.
Re: George Brett
Posted:
Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:44 am
by sdajr76
2?
-steven
Re: George Brett
Posted:
Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:59 am
by andycummings65
We have a correct guesser. The Royals won 85 in 1971 and 83 in 2003.
The Royals have had 17 winning seasons in 44 years, and Brett played in 15 of those winning seasons.
The Royals have never played in the postseason without George Brett in the lineup.
Re: George Brett
Posted:
Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:39 pm
by andycummings65
Don't know if it says more about Brett or about Royal ineptitude since he retired...............
Re: George Brett
Posted:
Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:37 pm
by Musial6
andycummings65 wrote:We have a correct guesser. The Royals won 85 in 1971 and 83 in 2003.
The Royals have had 17 winning seasons in 44 years, and Brett played in 15 of those winning seasons.
The Royals have never played in the postseason without George Brett in the lineup.
Maybe if Don Denkinger umpired all their games, they might make it back into the post-season again.
Just saying.
Re: George Brett
Posted:
Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:37 pm
by agabriel
katzenjammer wrote:andycummings65 wrote:We have a correct guesser. The Royals won 85 in 1971 and 83 in 2003.
The Royals have had 17 winning seasons in 44 years, and Brett played in 15 of those winning seasons.
The Royals have never played in the postseason without George Brett in the lineup.
Maybe if Don Denkinger umpired all their games, they might make it back into the post-season again.
Just saying.
The Royals were the more deserving team in 1985. Even if Denkinger makes the out call, the Royals still tie the game. The fact that Cardinals completely fell apart after that showed a colossal lack of guts or heart unbefitting a champion.
And the Royals have been worse than inept, particularly after the strike. They have been putrid. Putrid is hard to recover from. This past season, however, was merely distasteful. Distasteful is better than putrid! If the Royals do not win the AL Central in the next three seasons, I'll buy a five-pack.
Re: George Brett
Posted:
Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:14 am
by macnole
wow. Is too bad. Good city, and Kaufmann a great stadium for its time in a nice stadium complex with the Chiefs. It looked like they were harvesting some young talent in recent years but then never really took the next step.
I think maybe they also knew about this stat and placed a lot of hope in Alex Gordon as the next Brett. Watching Gordon at UN and then in KC, he never seemed to hit the performance level expected.
Re: George Brett
Posted:
Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:17 pm
by bontomn
I surrender, Andy. The Padres have six winning seasons without Tony Gwynn on their roster--five of them after he retired. Now, maybe I should check on how many winning seasons the Washington Senators had when I was following them as a kid. I can honestly recall only one--when Ted Williams was managing them just before they moved to Texas.