PDA

View Full Version : No Royals teams among history's 10 worst?


rageeumr
05-17-2006, 07:53 AM
Okay, so maybe this year's Royals team is used as a lead-in, but at least they aren't listed!

Sorry if this is a repost.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5587188?GT1=8192

Ten worst baseball teams of all time
Elliott Kalb / Special to FOXSports.com

The Kansas City Royals won 10 games in the first six weeks of the 2006 season, a pace that puts them among the worst of all-time.

Not counting any of my rotissierie or fantasy teams, here are 10 of the worst teams in major league history.

1. 1916 Philadelphia Athletics (36-117)
They are the only team in history to win less than 24% of their games. In fact, from August 7, 1915 to August 8, 1916, they were 29-125, for a winning percentage of .188. The star of the team was 41-year old second baseman Nap Lajoie. A year earlier, there were plenty of stars on the A's. But Connie Mack dismantled the championship team, although he kept Bullet Joe Bush. Bush won 15 of the team's 36 games. Johnny Nabors won his first game of the season, and then dropped 19 in a row. Shortstop Whitey Witt made 78 errors.


2. 1935 Boston Braves (38-115)
Babe Ruth was on this team. Of course, he was 40 years old, and the Braves signed him as a way to attract fans. The move didn't work. Ruth had six homers (three in one game) in only 72 at-bats. Ruth had come to Boston, having been promised the managerial position in '36. Of course, it never happened. The Braves finished more than 60 games out of first place.


3. 1962 New York Mets (40-120)
The Mets have to be included in any list of the worst teams ever. In their first year of existence, the Mets dropped their opener 11-4 to St. Louis. The Mets lost another eight games before winning their first. Marvin Eugene Throneberry (notice the initials) hit 16 homers. But, as his manager Casey Stengel would note, "Marv's glove fields better without Marv in it."


4. 1904 Washington Senators (38-113)
In 1907, the great Walter Johnson would make his debut for the Senators. Prior to that, they had no one. In '04, the New York Highlanders (they would later become the Yankees) had a pitcher named Jack Chesbro. Chesbro won 41 games in 1904. Washington won 38.


5. 1919 Philadelphia Athletics (36-104)
The pitching staff had an ERA of 4.26. And this was still the dead-ball era. They finished 52 games out of first place. Whitey Witt was still around, although Mack had enough sense not to play him at shortstop. He played 59 games in the outfield, and another 56 at second base.


6. 2003 Detroit Tigers (43-119)

This team had a team batting average of .240. Their pitching staff had a team ERA of 5.30. Mike Maroth lost 21 games. Nate Cornejo lost 17. Jeremy Bonderman lost 19. And Adam Bernero was 1-12. The Tigers lost 40 games that season by five or more runs.

The Tigers have a long history sprinkled with four World Series championship teams and a host of Hall of Fame players. They have a beautiful ballpark to play in, and a passionate city of fans. It's nice to see that ownership put some money into the organization and the team is competitive now just three years after that 43-win season.


7. 1939 St. Louis Browns (43-111)
You could have put the 1937 St. Louis Browns (46-108), or almost any year the Browns played. The '39 Browns finished 64.5 games behind the Yankees. Look at the American League that year. The Yankees had DiMaggio. The Red Sox had Williams. The Indians had Feller. The Tigers had Greenberg. The Browns had … Johnny Berardino?


8. 2004 Arizona Diamondbacks (51-111)
Take away 40-year old Randy Johnson (16-14), and the D-Backs were only 35-97. In fact, Arizona did try to remove "The Big Unit" all summer. But like the 2003 Tigers, this team has moved quickly to become respectable. Starting pitcher Brandon Webb was 7-16 for the 2004 D-Backs. He has won his first five starts in 2006. Arizona finished only five games back of first place in 2005, and will contend for the National League West title this season.


9. 1909 Washington Senators (42-110)
Take away 21-year old Walter Johnson, and the Senators were only 29-85. After 1909, Johnson improved from 13-25 to 25-13. That improvement made the Senators respectable in 1910, and far from one of the worst teams of all-time.


10. 1952 Pittsburgh Pirates (42-112)
If you're looking for recognizable names, Ralph Kiner and Joe Garagiola were regulars on this team and combined for 45 home runs (Kiner hit 37). A couple of 21-year olds were able to wait it out long enough to be a part of the 1960 Championship team (Dick Groat and Bob Friend).


Honorable Mention
The 1961 Philadelphia Phillies lost a record 23 games in a row, and finished 47-107. The Phillies in 1942 (42-109), 1941 (43-111), 1928 (43-109), 1939 (45-106), 1945 (46-108), and 1938 (45-105) were even worse than the '61 team

JBucc
05-17-2006, 07:56 AM
Give it some time we're still working at it

ChiTown
05-17-2006, 07:56 AM
The season is still young. They have time............

teedubya
05-17-2006, 07:57 AM
2003 Detroit Tigers (43-119)

yet they were able to sign Pudge Rodriguez... we sign Juan Gone, Benito Santiago, and get rid of Raul Ibanez after our 83-79 record.

We should have signed Pudge.

rageeumr
05-17-2006, 08:00 AM
2003 Detroit Tigers (43-119)

yet they were able to sign Pudge Rodriguez... we sign Juan Gone, Benito Santiago, and get rid of Raul Ibanez after our 83-79 record.

We should have signed Pudge.

I find it funny that at that time I felt Pudge was past his prime and that the Tigers made a bad investment. Pretty ironic considering the Royals' infatuation with washed-up veterans.

JBucc
05-17-2006, 08:01 AM
Heh. We even suck at sucking.

StcChief
05-17-2006, 08:07 AM
only recent team 2003 Tigers.

Come on you can beat that record.

Skip Towne
05-17-2006, 08:16 AM
Heh. We even suck at sucking.
:LOL:

Bob Dole
05-17-2006, 08:58 AM
only recent team 2003 Tigers.

Come on you can beat that record.

8. 2004 Arizona Diamondbacks (51-111)

KingPriest2
05-17-2006, 09:05 AM
2003 Detroit Tigers (43-119)

yet they were able to sign Pudge Rodriguez... we sign Juan Gone, Benito Santiago, and get rid of Raul Ibanez after our 83-79 record.

We should have signed Pudge.

Another reason to see Baird and Co. gone

Eleazar
05-17-2006, 09:13 AM
None of the recent Royals teams belong on the list.

People that think having a poor month makes you the worst team ever, since they were 'on pace', flaunt lack of knowledge. No team would keep up that pace through a whole season. In fact, I would bet that just about every 100 loss team in recent years has a month of April with single digit wins, or close to it.

We did it last year, but after most fans stopped paying attention, they had three half-decent (.400-.450) months out of 6 and didn't come close to breaking the record. Predictions of them being worse than the 62 Mets are sheer idiocy.

Do people not realize the difference between 100 losses and 120 losses? That's 20 games worse. If you have a great offseason and a lot of luck, you are happy to improve 10 games. The difference between the Royals in recent years - a 100 loss team - and a potential playoff team - is about 20 games.

So compare a wild card team to the Royals. That's how much better the Royals are than the 62 Mets team was.

It's not close. There's a reason why 4 or 5 teams a year seemingly have a shot at the end of april, but no one has done it in nearly 50 years.

In 2003 the Tigers had a chance but didn't break the record. They won THREE games in April. In May they won 11, but in every other month they had single digit wins.

Shows you how smart it is to judge a baseball season after 20 games. 20 games, as a percentage of the whole season, is not even equivalent to 2 games of the 16 game season in the NFL. Basically like predictions of doom on an NFL team after it loses game 1.

Yes the Royals are bad, yes they will lose 100 games, but losing 120 is out of the question.

dj56dt58
05-17-2006, 09:18 AM
Might as well add the '06 Cubs to that list :banghead:

alanm
05-17-2006, 10:22 AM
None of the recent Royals teams belong on the list.

People that think having a poor month makes you the worst team ever, since they were 'on pace', flaunt lack of knowledge. No team would keep up that pace through a whole season. In fact, I would bet that just about every 100 loss team in recent years has a month of April with single digit wins, or close to it.

We did it last year, but after most fans stopped paying attention, they had three half-decent (.400-.450) months out of 6 and didn't come close to breaking the record. Predictions of them being worse than the 62 Mets are sheer idiocy.

Do people not realize the difference between 100 losses and 120 losses? That's 20 games worse. If you have a great offseason and a lot of luck, you are happy to improve 10 games. The difference between the Royals in recent years - a 100 loss team - and a potential playoff team - is about 20 games.

So compare a wild card team to the Royals. That's how much better the Royals are than the 62 Mets team was.

It's not close. There's a reason why 4 or 5 teams a year seemingly have a shot at the end of april, but no one has done it in nearly 50 years.

In 2003 the Tigers had a chance but didn't break the record. They won THREE games in April. In May they won 11, but in every other month they had single digit wins.

Shows you how smart it is to judge a baseball season after 20 games. 20 games, as a percentage of the whole season, is not even equivalent to 2 games of the 16 game season in the NFL. Basically like predictions of doom on an NFL team after it loses game 1.

Yes the Royals are bad, yes they will lose 100 games, but losing 120 is out of the question.

You underestimate the Royals capacity to suck. :banghead:

Demonpenz
05-17-2006, 11:00 AM
every single part of the royals sucks hitting pitching they are slow they can't hit. I am convinced our trainer is ric flair, and he is putting our players in the figure 4 leg lock before games.

chefsos
05-17-2006, 12:27 PM
Stop whining. '88 O's started the season 0-21, and as a point of emphasis, finished it 3-17. They accidentally won a few during the summer to get to 54 total wins. Heh. They went 0-12 vs. the Royals.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/VBAL01988.htm

StcChief
05-17-2006, 02:10 PM
So 50 wins maybe 60 by the Royals faithful.... :homer:

keep them off this bad list.

Coogs
05-17-2006, 02:29 PM
Shows you how smart it is to judge a baseball season after 20 games. 20 games, as a percentage of the whole season, is not even equivalent to 2 games of the 16 game season in the NFL. Basically like predictions of doom on an NFL team after it loses game 1.


Except we have played 36 games now. Just 4 away from the quarter pole.

Eleazar
05-17-2006, 03:27 PM
Except we have played 36 games now. Just 4 away from the quarter pole.

er.. yep. I was confusing this conversation with one I was having with someone else on the same subject -looking at the record at the end of April which was after ~20 games.

So we are 22% of the way through now, which is the week between Game 3 and Game 4 in the NFL.

KCChiefsMan
05-17-2006, 03:38 PM
if the Royals were on loss 119 towards the end of the season, would fans show up to see the record tied and then broken? I would predict yes, close to sell out games just so people could see a piece of history. And it would be funny if fans cheered like crazy on loss 121