EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 Similar in theory to the best team thread. I'll leave you with one example and join the discussion later...... 1961 Philadelphia Phillies 47-107. They were dead last in the league in runs scored and allowed. They finished the season 46 games out of first, and 17 games out of SEVENTH. Famously, they lost 23 games in a row at one point. So what went wrong? The Phillies were similar to last year's Tigers, in which they played a lineup of youngsters who did not produce. Robin Roberts collapsed, going 1-10 with a 5.85 ERA. Happier times were ahead, as the Phillies nearly won the pennant three years later, before finishing the season with a 2-10 run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 The '62 Mets, hands down. They: - Still hold the modern record for losses (120). - Had 4 of 5 starters with 17 or more losses, and 2 with 20 or more. - Had a team OPS of 678 (beyond pitiful), and a team ERA over 5 in a year when only 2 other teams in the league had an ERA over 4. - Allowed 120 more runs than anyone else. - Had only one regular who hit over .275 (Richie Ashburn, also the team's only All-Star -- and he didn't even qualify for the batting title). Sure, they were an expansion team, but even expansion teams nowadays aren't this bad. I mean, when your own manager exclaims, "Can't anyone play this game?!?" you know you're pretty bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 That I've seen in my lifetime? Last year's Tigers, hands down Also: '98 Marlins and '88 Orioles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 1899 Cleveland Spiders 1899 Final Standings -20-134 (finished 12 out of 12 in the NL, 84 games out of 1st, 35 games behind the 11th place team) -Scored 529 runs, Allowed 1252 runs -last in the NL for: R, H, 2B, 3B, HR, BA, OBP, SLG -had starting pitchers throw up numbers such as: --- 4-30 record, 5.41 ERA --- 4-22 record, 5.78 ERA --- 1-18 record, 7.24 ERA --- 2-17 record, 5.86 ERA --- 1-11 record, 8.17 ERA You said "all time". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JHawk 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 1899 Cleveland Spiders 1899 Final Standings -20-134 (finished 12 out of 12 in the NL, 84 games out of 1st, 35 games behind the 11th place team) -Scored 529 runs, Allowed 1252 runs -last in the NL for: R, H, 2B, 3B, HR, BA, OBP, SLG -had starting pitchers throw up numbers such as: --- 4-30 record, 5.41 ERA --- 4-22 record, 5.78 ERA --- 1-18 record, 7.24 ERA --- 2-17 record, 5.86 ERA --- 1-11 record, 8.17 ERA You said "all time". That team was so bad that they played something like 87 straight road games to finish off the season because nobody wanted to see them play. I'd say we have a winner here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 Obviously the Cleveland Spiders trump any other team. Those were bad times for baseball. Duel ownership of teams meant owners would ship good players from one club to another (in this case St. Louis), creating a system where clubs were essentially playing in the same league as their farm club. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 The 2003 Tigers were pretty dreadful. They were like a AA team playing major league ball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gert T 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 Last year's Tigers team probably would have broke the recod for losses if the Twins hadn't already clinched the AL Central. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes Report post Posted April 10, 2004 Weren't the Clevland Spiders disbanded the year after 1899's "Bad" season? I know they didn't last much longer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted April 10, 2004 creating a system where clubs were essentially playing in the same league as their farm club. You know, I've heard enough of this "The A's were the Yankees glorified farm... ::reads rest of post:: Heh heh. That whacky Spiders owner! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bruiser Chong 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 Certainly not the worst team ever or even of recent times, but the 1997 Cubs' 0-13 start got them a spot as one of the worst Cubs teams in the last decade or so, even though, the 2000 and 2002 teams were worse, standings-wise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes Report post Posted April 10, 2004 Probably AT LEAST one Yankee team between 1980-1990- Definitely a dark era for the Yanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 As I have stated before, the Yankees had the BEST overall record of any franchise in the 1980s. The 1985 squad is one of the best teams to fall short of a division title. If there is a bad Yankee season to celebrate, its 1990. Don Mattingly completely fell off a cliff, posting a 643 OPS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 While I'll rank the 84 Tigers with the greatest ever...the 2003 Tigers were as bad as that team was good. If they were down a couple runs durring any point in a game you could pretty much count them out. Sad to watch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HarleyQuinn 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 Probably AT LEAST one Yankee team between 1980-1990- Definitely a dark era for the Yanks. Yankee Records in 1980's 1980: 103-59 1981: 59-48 1982: 79-83 1983: 91-71 1984: 87-75 1985: 97-64 1986: 90-72 1987: 89-73 1988: 85-76 1989: 74-87 Total: 854-708 Certainly not as horrible as all you Yankee fans make it out to be. Sure they didn't win any WS titles but to say they were "dark" ages is ridiculous. There only losing seasons were 1982(By only 4 games) and 1989(By 13 games). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted April 10, 2004 As I have stated before, the Yankees had the BEST overall record of any franchise in the 1980s. The 1985 squad is one of the best teams to fall short of a division title. If there is a bad Yankee season to celebrate, its 1990. Don Mattingly completely fell off a cliff, posting a 643 OPS. al doesn't agree that the 80s were a dark period, something that goes directly against Yankee teaching. I mean, sure, it's not the original drought, but what could have been that bad (And, in fact, this one was longer, but not looked on as poorly because they weren't a laughing stock.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
King Kamala 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 I saw the 98 Marlins (It may have been 99 though) against the Red Sox in Fenway. All I remember is everybody in our section was heckling Preston Wilson and Preston Wilson ended up hitting a grand slam to our section. Looking at baseball-reference it was 99 not 98. The Marlins won that damn game to, 10-7. My history at Red Sox games has been awful to say the least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted April 10, 2004 (edited) I saw a Double A Marlins game in 1997 up in Portland. 1998 and like 8 guys are on the main roster. Edited April 10, 2004 by Anglesault Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lomasmoney 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 Probably AT LEAST one Yankee team between 1980-1990- Definitely a dark era for the Yanks. Yankee Records in 1980's 1980: 103-59 1981: 59-48 1982: 79-83 1983: 91-71 1984: 87-75 1985: 97-64 1986: 90-72 1987: 89-73 1988: 85-76 1989: 74-87 Total: 854-708 Certainly not as horrible as all you Yankee fans make it out to be. Sure they didn't win any WS titles but to say they were "dark" ages is ridiculous. There only losing seasons were 1982(By only 4 games) and 1989(By 13 games). Shit, I would consider that a very successful decade if anything. Most franchises would kill for the chance to be as good as the Yankees were in the 80's. They averaged 88.4 wins a season for the decade and if you take out 1989 they averaged 90 wins, not exactly dark ages Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted April 10, 2004 The 2004 Yankees Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted April 10, 2004 Probably AT LEAST one Yankee team between 1980-1990- Definitely a dark era for the Yanks. Yankee Records in 1980's 1980: 103-59 1981: 59-48 1982: 79-83 1983: 91-71 1984: 87-75 1985: 97-64 1986: 90-72 1987: 89-73 1988: 85-76 1989: 74-87 Total: 854-708 Certainly not as horrible as all you Yankee fans make it out to be. Sure they didn't win any WS titles but to say they were "dark" ages is ridiculous. There only losing seasons were 1982(By only 4 games) and 1989(By 13 games). Shit, I would consider that a very successful decade if anything. Most franchises would kill for the chance to be as good as the Yankees were in the 80's. They averaged 88.4 wins a season for the decade and if you take out 1989 they averaged 90 wins, not exactly dark ages Was there a world championship? No? Not only was it the second dark ages, but the only completely disasterous post-Ruth decade they've ever had. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 I won't say the 80s weren't a disappointment for the Yankees. There is just this misinformation that the Yankees were pathetic in the 80s. This is untrue. They were competitive for most of the decade. 89-92 was the only truly bad period for the Yankees. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted April 10, 2004 I won't say the 80s weren't a disappointment for the Yankees You don't spend enough time in NY. I'd say that disappointing is a better word than "bad" but it still isn't an era that we look on lovingly. It was embarassing to realize that we (at the time) were gonna be the only decade without a world title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 That's only if you take an arbitrary look with your numbers. 1965-1975 was arguably worse, because they didn't even have a league championship. EDIT: And yes, a league championship isn't winning it all, but for a while it meant alot. Just look at the Giants in '51. I don't know when the change happened. I suspect expanding the playoffs had something to do with it, but people don't remember league champions anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted April 10, 2004 (edited) 1965-1975 was absolutely worse, because they were bad teams sucking badly. The 80s were hard partially because they were goodish teams that couldn't get it done. No one will deny that the first drought was worse than the second, regardless of length. Edited April 10, 2004 by Anglesault Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2004 The 80s were hard partially because they were goodish teams that couldn't get it done. The 80s Yankees had abysmal shortstops. Roy Smalley, Bob Meacham, Wayne Tolleson, Alvaro Espinosa. Well, Smalley was good, but the Tolleson years were absolutely terrible. If the Yankees had a decent shortstop at all, they would've won in '85 and probably '88. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lomasmoney 0 Report post Posted April 11, 2004 Was there a world championship? No? Not only was it the second dark ages, but the only completely disasterous post-Ruth decade they've ever had. Oh no, the poor Yankees went a whole 10 years without a world championship, boo fucking hoo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted April 11, 2004 Was there a world championship? No? Not only was it the second dark ages, but the only completely disasterous post-Ruth decade they've ever had. Oh no, the poor Yankees went a whole 10 years without a world championship, boo fucking hoo. 18 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted April 11, 2004 Was there a world championship? No? Not only was it the second dark ages, but the only completely disasterous post-Ruth decade they've ever had. Oh no, the poor Yankees went a whole 10 years without a world championship, boo fucking hoo. 18 years. and here I thought Cubs fans had it bad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lomasmoney 0 Report post Posted April 11, 2004 Was there a world championship? No? Not only was it the second dark ages, but the only completely disasterous post-Ruth decade they've ever had. Oh no, the poor Yankees went a whole 10 years without a world championship, boo fucking hoo. 18 years. Sorry they had last won in 1978 prior to 1996. Thats not that bad only 18 years that a Yankees fan had to go without seeing their Club win a World Series. Those poor Cubs ( 95 years) White Sox (85) Red Sox (84) fans certainly have not had it as bad as the unfortunate Yankees Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
