Reply With Quote
I don't know that they have a true rival. I would guess the Angels, simply because they absolutely own the Rangers in Anaheim. Plus, it's against the Angels that the fights seem to break out.
assuming all teams had a rival who would it be for the Rangers? it sucks because they havent had much playoff success. the only team they've played in the playoffs is the Yankees, and i know they could care less about Texas.
Oakland and the Angels are in the same state so its hard to argue that either one of them should be it. you could make a case for the Royals because they are one of the closest teams, we share Spring Training facility with them so we play them a lot, and both teams have achieved minimal success. Astros could be a rival. i say its Seattle just because they are in our division. in 1996 when we won the division, i remember they were hot on our trail and even pulled within 1 game before we had to fend them off. the A-Rod trade probably increased the dislike for the Rangers. neither team has done much in the playoffs so there are not many playoff rivalries.
what do you guys think?
I don't know that they have a true rival. I would guess the Angels, simply because they absolutely own the Rangers in Anaheim. Plus, it's against the Angels that the fights seem to break out.
The Rangers' rival is themselves.
The Angels are their daddy.
The Missions.
Dallas Kimball.
Baltimore
Yankees have knocked them out of the playoffs every time so they are definitely our true rival. Angels have been a source of contention the past few years for many Rangers fans like myself. The Athletics and White Sox are also old school rivals.
Compared to the Rangers, the Royals look like a juggernaut from an historical perspective. Granted, their success came a generation ago, but the Royals have made the postseason 7 different times, appeared in 2 World Series, and won a le -- during a 15-year stretch, the Royals' worst finish in their division was 3rd, which only happened twice. The Royals have 18 post-season wins in their history; the Rangers have 1. It's fair to say that the Rangers have had minimal success; I'm not sure you can accurately say the same of the Royals.
Ouch. Harsh. You don't have to be so mean about my boys. Even if it is true
i was talking about recently. i knew somebody would bring that up.
I had a feeling that would be your response.
Here's a fact: since 1976 (30 years), there are only 6 franchises in Major League Baseball that have more World Series appearances than the Royals: New York Yankees (1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003); St. Louis Cardinals (1982, 1985, 1987, 2004, 2006); Atlanta Braves (1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1999); Los Angeles Dodgers (1977, 1978, 1981, 1988); Oakland Athletics (1988, 1989, 1990); and Philadelphia Phillies (1980, 1983, 1993).
Many other teams have 2 World Series appearances during that time, like the Royals:
Boston (1986, 2004)
Baltimore (1979, 1983)
Toronto (1992, 1993)
Cleveland (1995, 1997)
Detroit (1984, 2006)
Minnesota (1987, 1991)
New York Mets (1986, 2000)
Florida (1997, 2003)
Cincinnati (1976, 1990)
San Diego (1984, 1998)
San Francisco (1989, 2002)
And many other franchises have fewer World Series appearances than the Royals during that period:
Chicago White Sox (2005)
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2002)
Milwaukee Brewers (1982)
Pittsburgh Pirates (1979)
Houston Astros (2005)
Arizona Diamondbacks (2001)
to say nothing of the franchises that have failed to reach the World Series at any point during the last 30 years: Texas, Seattle, Montreal/Washington, Chicago Cubs, Colorado, Tampa Bay.
If you want to think of it even more broadly, the Royals during that time are hardly without a postseason resume relative to the rest of the major leagues. Here are the franchise leaders in playoff appearances during the last 30 years:
17 -- New York Yankees
15 -- Atlanta Braves
10 -- Los Angeles Dodgers
10 -- St. Louis Cardinals
10 -- Oakland Athletics
9 -- Boston Red Sox
9 -- Houston Astros
7 -- Kansas City Royals
7 -- Philadelphia Phillies
6 -- California/Anaheim Angels
6 -- Minnesota Twins
6 -- Cleveland Indians
6 -- San Francisco Giants
5 -- Toronto Blue Jays
5 -- San Diego Padres
5 -- New York Mets
4 -- Baltimore Orioles
4 -- Chicago White Sox
4 -- Seattle Mariners
4 -- Cincinnati Reds
4 -- Pittsburgh Pirates
4 -- Chicago Cubs
3 -- Detroit Tigers
3 -- Texas Rangers
3 -- Arizona Diamondbacks
2 -- Milwaukee Brewers
2 -- Florida Marlins
1 -- Colorado Rockies
1 -- Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals
30 years is a pretty liberal view of "recent" IMO.
how about the past 20 years or so. more specifically, 1986 on since that was the last time the Royals even sniffed the playoffs.
Since 1986 -
The Royals' best finish was 84 wins.
The Royals have have FOUR 100+ loss seasons.
The Royals have had FOUR 90+ loss seasons.
The Royals have had ZERO playoff appearances.
The Royals have had SIX winning seasons (and 1 in the past 14 years)
in that same time since 86 -
The Rangers' best finish was 95 wins
The Rangers have had ZERO 100+ loss seasons
The Rangers have had FOUR 90+ loss seasons
The Rangers have had THREE playoff appearances
The Rangers have had NINE winning seasons.
from 1986 on, the Royals would kill to be as successful a franchise as Texas.
So my standard is liberal, but your decision to make the cutoff 1986 is somehow not arbitrary.
If you don't like 1976 and I don't like 1986, how about we start with 1985? Even then, the Royals have at least won more than 1 playoff game and have won a le, which is more than can be said for the Rangers during that stretch.
I'll agree that the Royals of late have been putrid. But with that said, Rangers fans would kill to have the franchise history that Kansas City fans have enjoyed.
if i was going back to just 20 years i would have started at 1987, which changes nothing.
winning a le 22 years ago is great for them, but it doesn't change the fact that the Royals are a franchise that is in FAR worse shape than the Rangers, and they have been for quite some time now.
My sole point is to negate the contention that the Royals have had minimal success. That's just not true.
If Rangers fans want to console themselves by a present day comparison to the Royals, that's none of my business. It is worth noting, though, that at least Royals fans can go look at their club's World Series momentos and recall a time, not too long ago, that the Royals were truly one of the dominant teams in the game. Rangers' fans don't have that solace.
The Rangers don't have any rivalries, unless you count the spirited yearly compe ion with Tampa Bay to avoid finishing last in the American League.
good for them. i hope those 22 year old memories serve them well.
Rangers fans can hold onto hope for the future, something the Royals have no hope for.
the Rangers also have 4 Silver Boot trophies to reflect on. And that's impressive.
Yes, well I suppose that being in a better situation right now than the Royals are is something to be happy about.
I don't know any Rangers fans who do this, maybe it's just mono. Mostly, all 12 of us just console ourselves with the vast improvement of our farm system and in the fact that the Rangers have quietly been playing around .500 ball for the last two months, despite some really minor-league lineups and SP's due to injuries. It's not much but its far better than April-June which were a complete loss.
And yes, I would love for the Rangers to have a 22-yr old WS le. Or any le, even if it was before my time. Of course, if it was before my time, there is a good chance that it would have come as the Washington Senators, which doesn't really count, imho.
And that, my friends, is a wonderfully reasonable viewpoint. No need to disparage the Kansas City Royals rich history; and no reason to contend that you wouldn't be a happy fan to remember a time when your team was great.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 08-27-2007 at 05:53 PM.
That is the scary part. With Tom Hicks, you just never know. For example, he did a radio interview about two weeks ago saying that we would see Eric Hurley called up in September. Less than an hour before, Jon Daniels said they wouldn't call Hurley up becuase they didn't want to burn an option on him and have to add him to the 40-man roster. So Daniels seems to understand what needs to get done, whereas HIcks is... well, being himself.
I have a lot of hope, I think its a great time to be a Rangers fan and I still watch every game except on Thursdays when my dart team plays. I think they will be a .500 team or better next year and perhaps in 2-3 years be competetive enough to take a run at the division. This is my conservative estimate. But next season in Spring Training, I will be saying how this is the year, win the division, blah blah! Spring training just does things to people. So just disregard everything I say in March
Uhhh... why did you edit all that stuff out of your post? Did you not want me to quote it?
I thought I had gone off topic and was sounding a bit pretentious.Uhhh... why did you edit all that stuff out of your post? Did you not want me to quote it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
