Life's questions debated: better to root for a miserable football team or a miserable baseball team?

Your Royals won 75 games last year. Getting into the low 80s seems like a decent goal from here, in December, when what we see on the Royals roster is more or less what we'll get on opening day.

Your Chiefs won two games this year. Not making Leno's monologue seems like a decent goal from here, especially after reading Poz's predictably entertaining column this morning.

Now, one blog topic that I meant to get to this fall but didn't was a discussion about which of the Truman Sports Complex teams was in worse shape.

That discussion seems pretty silly now, and has for most of the last two or three months, with the Royals showing continued signs of improvement -- .500 is realistic, and if everything goes right, who knows, there's no powerhouse in the AL Central -- and the Chiefs just having one of those seasons your mama wouldn't want you to talk about.

So what we'd like to do here in this little corner of the internets is ask you a simple question: is it worse to watch and root for a miserable football team or a miserable baseball team?

Most of you are Royals fans, and that's usually a pretty good demographic to find Chiefs fans, too, which means a whole big lot of you fine folks have lived through miserable seasons in both sports in recent years, so I'm declaring this piece of turf the best place to tackle one of life's meaningless questions.

Keep in mind we're not asking you which is worse in comparision to watching good teams. That's a whole different argument, the daily drama and score-watching and playoff feel of a baseball team in contention into September vs. the week-long anticipation and absurdly detailed breakdowns leading up to appointment TV with friends every Sunday.

No, let's stick to what we know, and this being Kansas City, where the one-winning-season-since-the-strike Royals and two-for-their-last-25 Chiefs dominate our sports conscience, we know bad.

Unless I've lost too many of you with an extended vacation from Ball Star -- sorry about that, but c'mon, Olathe is beautiful this time of year -- the comments section will provide a better breakdown that the next few graphs but here goes anyway.

The argument for baseball: They say the baseball season is a marathon, but when you're watching a dreadful team, that's just not true. No, watching a 100-loss baseball team all summer means the season is more Iron Man Triathlong than mere marathon.

The meaningless games run on forever, and the losses run together, until the only thing you know for sure is which player climbed the wall to catch a fly ball that bounced on the warning track (Kerry Robinson), which player was hit in the back with a cutoff throw (Ken Harvey) and which player was picked off when he literally fell off first base (David DeJesus).

One of the payoffs of rooting for a miserable team is a high draft pick, but that high draft pick is less valuable in baseball than any other sport. First, you have to hope your team can sign the guy, who will probably be represented by Scott Boras. Then, you have to hope he's more Evan Longoria than Colt Griffin, because no sport has more flops drafted high than baseball.

Heck, there's even high draft picks that make it but take years to develop. Carlos Pena was drafted 10th overall in 1998 but went through at least six organizations before his breakout 46 HR season in 2007. The Royals took Zack Grienke sixth overall in 2002 but had to stick through a 17-loss season in 2005, him walking away from the game in 2006, and then some middle relief before Zack developed into one of the game's best young starting pitchers.

Also, bad football teams are routinely in the playoffs the next year. Look at the Falcons or the Dolphins or the Ravens. When the Rays go from worst-to-first, there's a reason it's a season-long story.

Bad baseball teams are usually bad the next year, too. And unless you're a Mariners fan, there's a good chance that the miserable baseball team you root for is being out-payrolled by two or three to one when compared to the usual playoff teams. The payroll thing is more excuse/obstacle than anything else, as the Rays and Twins and A's and Indians (not to mention Yankees and Tigers and Mets) have shown, but for a fan who sees his team 22 games back in August, it sure can feel like a death sentence.

The argument for football: A miserable, 100-loss baseball team still wins nearly 40 percent of its games. That means, on any given night, the chance that you'll see your team win, show you some sliver of hope, is roughly the chance of Reggie Miller -- one of the best shooters of all-time -- making a three-pointer.

Now, a miserable football team loses 12 games. Fourteen if they're the Chiefs, and roughly all of them if they're the Lions. Did you know that if a baseball team lost the same percentage of its games as the Chiefs did this year it would go 20-142? Even the Cleveland Spiders think that's bad.

There were two weeks this year where Kansas Citians had a winning team to talk about. Two. The whole flipping year. And even those came well after we all could see this would be a miserable, lost season. Two wins.

That's the same number of presidential videos released by Paris Hilton.

What's more, a bad football team doesn't just get beat. No, a bad football team gets beat up. A bad football team can't stop anybody on third and short. A bad football team uses three different quarterbacks in one game. A bad football team sets NFL records for fewest sacks in a season.

A bad baseball team might take one or two games in a series with a playoff team. A bad football team hopes to cover the 14-point spread against a playoff team.

You can still buy a cheap ticket and have a good time drinking beer and eating nachos while watching your bad baseball team, and that's not a bad way to spend your summer.

The nature of football means you'll be cold and cursing while watching your bad football team, and that's a terrible way to spend your fall and winter.

Submitted by Sam Mellinger on December 29, 2008 - 10:22am.
| login or register to post comments
Submitted by Nathan on January 6, 2009 - 8:08am.

For me, it all comes down to weather. When your football team stinks, it is getting cold outside and going to a game is both miserable and uncomfortable. And while there are cetainly things to do outside in the winter, it's not like you spend the season outdoors.

With baseball, though, it's summer and you can still go watch your team play and, if nothing else, enjoy sitting outside on a sunny day or a warm evening. Plus, if you want to put the misery of a 100 loss team into the back of your head, then you can just find something to do outside.

And then, at the end of the baseball season, when you don't think you can quite take any more losses, it's football season! And you can be optimistic at least for a few weeks, until the losses start piling up and winter starting rolling in...

Submitted by defchief58 on January 9, 2009 - 6:06pm.

I thing rooting or cheering or following a sports team that is not very good or lousy if you will comes down to loyalty for your teams. I am from the Kansas City area but live in California. For the past 25 years due to the USMC and my current job I have been away from the area. However I have never rooted for any other teams other than Kansas City teams. I am Loyal and that is the way it will be.

Submitted by Johnny U on January 5, 2009 - 9:41am.

That's a tough choice. Fortunately in 2008 we didn't have to. We had both.

On the other hand... with the Royals finally loosening the purse strings and the firing of Peterson including (hopefully) the house cleaning to follow... we might not have to watch either in 2009.

Submitted by bigsteveno on January 4, 2009 - 11:14pm.

Even a bad MLB team wins a third of its games. And in the NFL crappy teams generally only beat other crappy teams, while if you're a fan of a crappy baseball team you have a decent chance of going to see them play against an elite team and win.

Plus only a fool sits for hours outdoors in freezing, blustery weather to see your team play a game it is 99% certain to lose like Chiefs fans do.

Submitted by dude on December 31, 2008 - 10:06am.

Baseball teams are not equal; each team does not have an equal chance of winning due to the payroll structure. Even if the Royals somehow reach the playoffs, could they keep all their players after six years? No. I prefer watching the game of baseball and the atmosphere at Kauffman. The relaxed nature of the game; the ebb and flow of the action suits me. But, I would like to see baseball changed so small markets have an equal chance of winning.

With football, there is always the weather. The roof should have been built; big mistake in voting it down. Huge direct and indirect economic impact coming from events in a dome. But, also, there is the nature of the fan in the stands. The atmosphere is tense; people always standing blocking your view; leaning into your personal space to high-five some idiot; many people are drunk when they enter Arrowhead; spilled beer on your shoes; it's one all-out party every Sunday. It's as though the experience is more important than the game, and I don't prefer it.

Submitted by seanut1 on December 30, 2008 - 6:50pm.

If you must choose bewtween the two. The whether is much nicer, & tickets are cheaper.

Submitted by JMGesling on January 2, 2009 - 11:20am.

Think about it. Successful hitting is 3/10. In baseball, success is failure in many other sports. 3/10 passing? yuck. 3/10 shooting (especially if it's from the foul stripe)?

Plus, what other sports allow you to see the big time players more times? A 3 home game stand against the yankees allows for more times to see A-Rod, Jeter, etc...vs. one game against the Jets or NYG and see Favre or Manning once.

And yes. Most times, the WEATHER is nicer.

Submitted by jtuck123 on December 30, 2008 - 9:26am.

The question posted reads: "Better to root for a miserable football team or a miserable baseball team?". Well, let's break down this question just a tad...First off, neither team is better to root for. When it comes down to it, we're gonna root for our 2-14 team or our 56-106 team whether they are good or not. So, is the question more like, what team would I rather suffer through for an entire season? Personally, I think that I would rather see the 2-14 team play...I love the Royals and I'm pretty sure if I had the choice between a Royals and a Chiefs game that I would take the Royals, but there's only 16 games in the NFL season. (Unless the team makes it to the playoffs and we all know how good the Chiefs are in the post-season...) I can't take watching a 56-106 team play...When you lose 19 straight, it wears on you, it tears you down. So, my answer would be to watch a terrible football team because I don't watch them every day and I've only have to watch 16 games...
JT

PS - Things are on the turnaround for the Royals. Who knows when we won't be rooting for a "miserable" baseball team anymore...

Submitted by cpass on December 30, 2008 - 9:41am.

The question is, which is less painful? It's hard to say because they're different. The thing that really made the Chiefs' season brutal was that, after every single one of those excruciating close losses, we had to wait a whole week before another game and another chance. In baseball, tomorrow's always another day. It was harder to for me watch football this year (unless the Royals had Brian Bannister pitching, which was one of the most painful Royals experiences ever).

Submitted by jtuck123 on December 30, 2008 - 10:13am.

You know, I looked at what I typed and realized that it might not make complete sense...What I wanted to say, is that I think it's harder to watch a losing baseball team lose 106 games than it is to watch a football team lose 14...Yeah, they both aren't the most fun to watch, but because baseball is so long and you can easily get stuck in a rut, I think it's easier to watch a football team who's not doing well because they can do the "worst to first" scenario. True, this years Chiefs were very hard to watch because they lost most of their games by 4 or less points, but if the Royals kept losing those games 1-0 or 2-1, I think it would be worse to watch. Either way, this next year Kansas City sports need to progress drastically...
JT

PS - Sorry for the PS's, but Sam, quick question...It says I posted my first post at 10:20 something and it wasn't even 10 yet...Are we still on daylight savings time on the blog?

Submitted by Sam Mellinger on December 30, 2008 - 9:30am.

.....aren't miserable anymore. But they were in all of our recent memories.

Submitted by tonkabob on December 29, 2008 - 12:00pm.

I'd say it's much better to root for a bad baseball team. In fact, I like the fact that the Royals have been bad. Reasons:
1. I can buy cheap tickets.
2. I can buy cheap tickets and move to better seats, and nobody cares.
3. There's usually plenty of room for me to get comfortable in the stands.
4. Fans from other cities don't think I'm an "obnoxious Royals fan".
5. An occasional mention on Sportscenter is a thrill, rather than an expectation.

Submitted by jtuck123 on December 30, 2008 - 9:53am.

...but wouldn't you rather have a good baseball team? I watch/listen 95% of the baseball games on TV/radio anyway, so that really doesn't affect my pocketbook too much in the way of seating prices. I do like the fact that I can spit my sunflower seeds pretty much anywhere I want in that stadium, but if being better as a team meant that I couldn't spit my seeds where I wanted, I would be perfectly fine with that. And Sports Center...what a perfect example of what money can do for a team...Look at the Yankee's for instance. Take Chien-Ming Wang...That's pretty much all I heard about for a week on Sports Center..."And Chien-Ming Wang is out until September due to idiotic base running." For some stupid reason, the Yankee's can make the news because they have money. Yet, day after day Mike Aviles makes All-Star plays at shortstop and he gets on Sports Center how many times? Maybe that 2 second "oh-here's-a-play-from-the-worst-team-in-the-league" segment? Anybody ever see the Royals on there for longer than that?
JT

Submitted by cpass on December 30, 2008 - 10:07am.

...when Mitch Maier rolled the ball to Ross Gload along the top of the left field wall.

Submitted by jtuck123 on December 30, 2008 - 11:53am.

Wasn't that something? First off, Ross Gload was playing outfield...That's worthy of Sports Center. And secondly, Mitch Maier rolling that ball to him was absolutely ridiculous...
JT

Submitted by MarkLaFlamme on December 29, 2008 - 11:00am.

I think you summed it up on your own. A lousy football team can rebound to become a decent football team over the course of one off season. That can happen in baseball, too, but it's rare.
I'm a huge Royals fan. I like to tell people that the great thing about cheering for a loser is that the pressure is off by late June; I can relax without worrying about nuisances like playoff spots.
It's a bald lie to mask my inner pain. I want the Royals to shed the "lowly" designation so I can stop getting into bar fights with Red Sox fans who ask me things like: "They're a minor league team, right?"
The Royals return to glory is happening with the roughly the same pace as an iceburg carving out a mountain chain. Little iceburgs, like Joey Gathright, too.
By nature of the individual sports, baseball fans suffer longer (and perhaps deeper) than football fans.

www.marklaflamme.com

User login

Recent comments

Interviews

Gil Meche: The older brother of the Royals' rotation talks bowling, collecting baseball cards, and sliders

Gil Meche: The older brother of the Royals' rotation talks bowling, collecting baseball cards, and sliders

Very good first-day turnout on Twitter. Thank you. If you're on and haven't found me, I'm at "mellinger." Let's join up, we'll have fun.

You may have noticed we didn't have an MGD update after the weekend, and that's because of a bonus weekend post on SI coverboy/comedian Zack Greinke, and that Davies' start on Thursday means we won't miss a week with an MGD update.

READ MORE...

Submitted by Sam Mellinger on April 28, 2009 - 7:52am.
| read more | 6 comments

Zack Greinke: Ball Star's most requested interview subject talks trucks, fighting, and trash

Zack Greinke, for a lot of reasons, might be the most interesting player on the Royals roster, and this is a team that includes an outfielder who owns lions and ostriches and likes to be slapped in the face, a pitcher who was knighted by his native Aruba, another who works construction in the offseason, and a reliever who body slams opposing players and prides himself on his baking.

Greinke is the most-requested interview for this blog, and if you act now, you can read a bonus interview where Kyle Davies defends himself against what he alleges is Greinke's slander. All in good fun.

READ MORE...

Submitted by Sam Mellinger on March 26, 2009 - 8:41am.
| read more | 11 comments

Army Maj. Michael Lalor: Rooting on the Royals from Iraq

Confession time. That "contest" we ran here
was officially won by Tom Barkwell from Madagascar, and I loved both his words and the fact that he sent them from an island nation in the Indian Ocean, but I gotta tell you, it wasn't my favorite letter.

Nope, my favorite came from Army Maj. Michael Lalor, whose words came from Iraq.

I didn't mention this in the original contest because I wanted to give Michael his own post. He was kind enough to answer some questions over e-mail, which we're turning into the latest interview. His letter is below our e-mail exchange.

READ MORE...

Submitted by Sam Mellinger on September 19, 2008 - 7:07am.
| read more | 12 comments

Royals Gear