Was 1917 the series that they threw with Shoeless Joe? If it was do you count it?

In the grand scheme of things - the Royals are pretty successful franchise overall considering their age.

You'd probably shocked if you looked at the other division teams. Detroit and Cleveland both have 11 series wins but they've been around for 120 years. Minnesota has the two World Series but haven't done almost anything in the playoffs beyond those two years. The other teams have way more playoff appearances but in actual playoff success the Royals hold up well.

I was looking over the White Sox history last night. It's not exactly that they've been bad over their existence, it's just downright mediocre to a tee.

They are currently 5 games over .500 as a franchise all-time. They will certainly fall below .500 before season's end. Mediocrity at its finest.

They've always been 2nd banana in Chicago to the Cubbies, and have the chip on their shoulder to prove it among some of the most vile, disgusting garbage human beings to ever call themselves a fanbase.

They don't draw fans for shit. It's remarkable that they can play in a metro area behemoth the size of Chicago and not draw 2 million+ annually, even during down years. I know it's the south side, but still, that's bad. Best year they've ever had was 2.957 million in 2007. Royals drew 2.7 million in 2016.

Lastly, if we do want to define success by playoffs, championships, etc... Then there definitely is an argument to made there. Royals have been to the playoffs 9 times in their existence, winning two WS and playing in four. White Sox have been to the playoffs 7 times during the same time period and while winning their only trip to the WS in this time.

Are the White Sox basically to baseball to what the Clippers are to the NBA? I'd say it's kinda close, except the Clips have better fans.

His bat needs to be in the lineup somewhere everyday