This is one of the worst teams ever

[Redskins Rick]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, the O’s have already won 40 games, same as the expansion Mets, so that record is safe.    

However, before calling the Mets the worst team ever, you might want to consider the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, who went 20-134.    The cutoff for the “modern era” is usually considered 1900, so they’re usually excluded from the conversation about the worst team, but they were WAY worse than the Mets...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_Cleveland_Spiders_season

Thank you for the @DrungoHazewood post of the day.

 

[LA2]

It's sobering to realize that even after sweeping the Jays, we're still 20.5 games behind them.

[O's84]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Well, the O’s have already won 40 games, same as the expansion Mets, so that record is safe.    

However, before calling the Mets the worst team ever, you might want to consider the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, who went 20-134.    The cutoff for the “modern era” is usually considered 1900, so they’re usually excluded from the conversation about the worst team, but they were WAY worse than the Mets...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_Cleveland_Spiders_season

Technically we can still have a worse record than the 62 Mets if we lose every game left in the seasons because we play 162 games compared to the 160 games  of the 62 Mets (40-122 is of course worse than 40-120).  Not that that will happen obviously.

 

[atomic]

3 hours ago, LA2 said:

It's sobering to realize that even after sweeping the Jays, we're still 20.5 games behind them.

What is even more amazing is we are 31.5 games behind the Rays. You know the team we were making fun of before the season because of how bad they were going to be. 

[LA2]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

What is even more amazing is we are 31.5 games behind the Rays. You know the team we were making fun of before the season because of how bad they were going to be. 

Haha yes, I know. But not to worry: we're going to be spoilers the rest of the way. Just Run, Baby, Run! They haven't seen that from us yet.

The CS%'s for the other AL East teams are all 25% except for the RSox's 32%. (The O's are the best in the division at 34%. TTTP, Baby, TTTP!) Houston: 29%; Oakland: 32%; Seattle: 28%. League average is 27%.

[weams]

On 8/21/2018 at 8:33 AM, Ohfan67 said:

So you think Kapler is Klentak’s AND MacPhail’s boss because of the format of the wiki page? Come on.  

Kapler is definitely the employee.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

What is even more amazing is we are 31.5 games behind the Rays. You know the team we were making fun of before the season because of how bad they were going to be. 

I was trying to tell folks that the Rays' selloff didn't mean they wouldn't be competitive.

I am surprised at how well they have weathered the injuries to their starting pitchers.

 

[LA2]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was trying to tell folks that the Rays' selloff didn't mean they wouldn't be competitive.

I am surprised at how well they have weathered the injuries to their starting pitchers.

 

Tampa grows pitchers in test tubes.

[weams]

1 minute ago, LA2 said:

Tampa grows pitchers in test tubes.

It's like pitching in Dodger stadium there. 

[weams]

Just now, weams said:

It's like pitching in Dodger stadium there. 

Did any of the graduates ever make it on the big stages?

[OFFNY]

3 minutes ago, LA2 said:

 

Tampa Bay grows pitchers in test tubes.

 

o

 

 

o

[DrungoHazewood]

6 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Thank you for the @DrungoHazewood post of the day.

 

I appreciate that. 

The 1899 Spiders should probably have a pretty big asterisk.  They existed in the era of big monopolies, and baseball was no exception - the 12 team National League was the only major league for about eight years.  The 1890s saw the rise of syndicate baseball, which not only led to a 20-134 team, but also the dissolution of the National League Orioles.  The same people owned both the Spiders and the St. Louis Cardinals.  They saw St. Louis as the bigger market and transferred all of the best players there.  Almost like if the Orioles and the Norfolk Tides played in the same league.  It was an unholy arrangement, with one team always fearing the smallest bit of success would lead to the transfer of anyone good to the stronger team.

The Orioles (with the full consent of HOF manager Ned Hanlon) got into bed with the Brooklyn Superbas/Trollydodgers, and most of the Orioles HOFers were transferred to Brooklyn.  Hanlon included.  John McGraw and Wilbert Robinson begged out of the deal, citing their ownership in a local bar/bowling alley called The Diamond.  McGraw also somehow acquired Iron Man McGinnity and by the sheer force of his will managed the mostly decimated team into 4th place in '99.  Louisville and Pittsburgh had a similar arrangement, and because Pittsburgh drew a little better in the 1890s they still have a MLB team and Louisville doesn't.

But in the winter of ''99-1900 the NL came to their senses, banned ownership in more than one team, and contracted the Orioles, the Spiders, Washington and Louisville.

[DrungoHazewood]

9 hours ago, TonySoprano said:

The Athletic - https://theathletic.com/493486/2018/08/28/how-do-the-2018-orioles-stack-up-against-the-worst-teams-in-history/

 

 

When I see something like this my first thought is always "why did they pick 1943?"

Probably because if you start in 1943 and count backwards there was a sub-50 win team more than half the time going back into the 1920s.  From 1935-43 the Browns and the two Philadelphia teams were under 50 wins almost as often as not.  From '33-45 the Phillies' best record was 64-89.  From '38-42 their best was 50-103.

[DrungoHazewood]

7 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

I think and hope, the 1962 Expansion Mets will continue to hold onto the title of worse baseball team ever.

 

 

They're probably the worst Major League team since WWII.  But they're certainly not the worst baseball team ever, and not the worst MLB team ever.  

The 1872 Washington Nationals played in the National Association, which is sometimes called the first major league.  It was probably about the quality of the Dominican Summer League today (and that's being charitable), and the Nats went 0-11 before dropping out of the league in late June.  If they played the 2018 Aberdeen Ironbirds they'd probably call the thing off in the 3rd inning with Aberdeen up 28-0.  They might be the worst MLB team ever.

[TonySoprano]

27 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

When I see something like this my first thought is always "why did they pick 1943?"

Probably because if you start in 1943 and count backwards there was a sub-50 win team more than half the time going back into the 1920s.  From 1935-43 the Browns and the two Philadelphia teams were under 50 wins almost as often as not.  From '33-45 the Phillies' best record was 64-89.  From '38-42 their best was 50-103.

They could've moved the cutoff back a year.  WWII was a reason.
 

Quote

For all of the complaints about the lack of parity and so-called “tanking” in today’s game, non-competitive teams were far more common prior to World War II. From 1900 to 1942, 16 teams finished with a winning percentage south of .300, and 60 finished with a winning percentage of .350 or worse. There were 680 team seasons in those 43 years, meaning 2.4 percent of teams from 1900 to 1942 were sub-.300 teams, and 8.8 percent won 35 percent of their games or fewer.

The war leveled the playing field by sending many of the game’s best players into the service. In the wake of the war, integration and the draft provided new avenues for bad teams to improve their rosters (though not all teams took full advantage of both), while expansion widened the middle of the pack, which had the effect of reining in the extremes at both ends. 

Having said that, give one two sets of numbers and anyone can make two completely opposite arguments out of them.