Baseball Toaster: The Griddle : Conjectures of Execrableness

Rank	Team	W	L	PCT	Division
1	Chicago Cubs	82	50	.621	C1
2	Philadelphia	73	59	.553	E1
3	Arizona	68	64	.515	W1
4	Milwaukee	77	55	.583	C2
5T	St. Louis	73	60	.549	C3
5T	New York Mets	73	60	.549	E2
7	Florida	67	65	.508	E3
8	Houston	66	66	.5	C4
9	Los Angeles Dodgers	65	67	.492	W2
10	Colorado	62	71	.466	W3
11	San Francisco	58	73	.443	W4
12T	Cincinnati	58	74	.439	C5
12T	Atlanta	58	74	.439	E4
14	Pittsburgh	57	75	.432	C6
15	San Diego	50	82	.379	W5
16	Washington	47	85	.356	E5

American League

Rank	Team	W	L	PCT	Division
1	Los Angeles Angels	80	51	.611	W1
2	Tampa Bay	79	51	.608	E1
3	Chicago White Sox	76	56	.576	C1
4	Boston	76	55	.58	E2
5	Minnesota	74	58	.561	C2
6	New York Yankees	70	61	.534	E3
7	Toronto	68	63	.519	E4
8T	Texas	65	68	.489	W2
8T	Cleveland	64	67	.489	C3
10	Detroit	64	68	.485	C4
11	Baltimore	62	70	.47	E5
12	Oakland	60	72	.455	W3
13	Kansas City	56	76	.424	C5
14	Seattle	50	82	.379	W4

Random Game Callbacks

Select a date:

So where is that book?

Personal favorites that I wrote

The last batter to reach on catcher's interference was ...

Ivan Ochoa of San Francisco by Paul Lo Duca of Florida on August 20, 2008

FAQs

At least I think they should be.

Cycle alerts

Yellow alert - Player needs triple for cycle
Orange alert - Player needs double for cycle
Red alert - Player need single for cycle

If a player needs a home run for the cycle, the level of the alert varies depending upon the determination of the Cycle Detection Warning System, which is headquartered in Thief River Falls, Minnesota.

Syndication

About the Toaster

Baseball Toaster runs on some experimental software called Fairpole. It's still under development.

For more information, please visit the Fairpole blog, or read the FAQ.

Conjectures of Execrableness

2005-03-16 09:32

by Mike Carminati

To be worst,
The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune,
Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear.
The lamentable change is from the best;
The worst returns to laughter. Welcome, then,
Thou unsubstantial air that I embrace!
The wretch that thou hast blown unto the worst
Owes nothing to thy blasts.

—William "Author" Shakespeare, King Lear

Hope springs eternal. Every team is now tied with a record of zero wins and zero losses. Every team can dream, but only one will be the worst.

Last year it was the Diamondbacks, who took a 33-win plunge to reach the depths of a 51-111 record. Two years ago, the Tigers chased history by limping to 43-119, the sixth worst record in the "modern" era and the worst since the legendarily bad expansion-year Mets.

This year, there are a number of great candidates. Jim Caple writes that the Rockies are going the extra mile to grab the gold ring of sucking. But they won't be able to coast to crappiness. The D-Backs and D-Rays seem deliciously wretched, and don’t forget the Royals, Brewers, Mariners, Jays, Pirates, and Reds.

Here are all the teams from 2004 with a sub-.450 winning percentage:

Team	W	L	PCT
Arizona Diamondbacks	51	111	.315
Kansas City Royals	58	104	.358
Seattle Mariners	63	99	.389
Montreal Expos	67	95	.414
Milwaukee Brewers	67	94	.416
Toronto Blue Jays	67	94	.416
Colorado Rockies	68	94	.420
Tampa Bay Devil Rays	70	91	.435
New York Mets	71	91	.438
Detroit Tigers	72	90	.444
Pittsburgh Pirates	72	89	.447

If anyone wants to top (or bottom) the '03 Tigers as the worst team of the decade, they are going to have to give 150% or is it 200%—what's the mathematically challenged standard today?

Here are the worst so far in the 2000s:

Team	Year	W	L	PCT
Detroit Tigers	2003	43	119	.265
Arizona Diamondbacks	2004	51	111	.315
Detroit Tigers	2002	55	106	.342
Tampa Bay Devil Rays	2002	55	106	.342
Milwaukee Brewers	2002	56	106	.346
Kansas City Royals	2004	58	104	.358
Kansas City Royals	2002	62	100	.383
Pittsburgh Pirates	2001	62	100	.383
Tampa Bay Devil Rays	2001	62	100	.383
Baltimore Orioles	2001	63	98	.389
Seattle Mariners	2004	63	99	.389
Tampa Bay Devil Rays	2003	63	99	.389
San Diego Padres	2003	64	98	.395

So who will be the worst, the absolute nadir, this year? And can they challenge Detroit for the worst of the decade? Discuss…

Advertisement

Comments

2005-03-16 10:13:09

1. Hop Wechsler

My money would be on the Devil Rays. Tampa overachieved last year and despite some decent youth will probably fall back. I have enough trivial reasons to be optimistic about the other teams (OK, some less trivial: Ben Sheets, Oliver Perez, Zach Greinke, Roy Halladay, Russ Ortiz...OK joking but seriously Arizona should be better, enough young Rockies who have half a chance to be better than Neifi Perez, Beltre being better than Willie Bloomquist, the Reds' offense helping them win a few 9-7 games) but not much on the Devil Rays. & I expect Victor Zambrano to have a decent year for the Mets, whatever it's worth. I wouldn't say I wouldn't have traded him for Kazmir...yet...but I wouldn't expect much from Kazmir in 2005 either.

2005-03-16 10:22:59

2. Ken Arneson

To me, Kansas City looks head and shoulders above (or is it ankles and feet below?) anyone else as this year's worst team. Matt Stairs and Terrence Long in the OF? Yeeowch.

2005-03-16 11:11:44

3. Cliff Corcoran

I've gotta second KC here. Followed by Tampa Bay. The D'Backs have way to large of a Pythagorean hole to climb out of and their moves could all implode on them, so put them third worst. Meanwhile, I notice no one's mentioned the Nationals. They have to be in this conversation, especially because you have no idea how RFK will play and how that might effect the team, or what will fall off Nick Johnson this year.

2005-03-16 11:49:11

4. Jon Weisman

If you're a fan of one of these teams and you're this bad heading into September, do you root for losses to be immortalized? If you're going to be bad, should you be tops at being bad?

Probably not, I guess.

2005-03-16 12:27:00

5. Cliff Corcoran

I know this will elicit groans, but as a fan of the Yankees during the dark days from '88-'92, the answer to Jon's question is no. You root for .500. If things are that dire in Sept, you root for individual players to either reach statistical goals, or to show something that bodes well for next year. And you hope against hope that your team's awful season will not become immortalized. The 1990 Yankees are not infamous. I'm pleased about that.

2005-03-16 13:06:17

6. Hop Wechsler

Andy Hawkins pitching a no-hitter & losing isn't infamous?

2005-03-16 13:18:21

7. Mike Carminati

As a Phillies fan, "Ahem, Groan!"

2005-03-16 19:21:39

8. Cliff Corcoran

Cripes, I think I shut that out of my head. Dude, he didn't just lose, he lost 4-0 in eight innings. Thank you King Leyritz.

2005-03-17 13:52:52

9. graciebarn

How to tell if a team is too one-dimensional...

If the batting average of any player is higher than the team's winning percentage, then we have some issues. (Follow the turn-of-the-millennium Mariners' lead...)

2005-03-18 07:29:34

10. McEwing

My money would be on the Oakland A's
to go from the penthouse to the outhouse.
Yes , they lose a great player every season, but still manage to contend.
However losing Mulder and Hudson is to much to overcome. The team is demoralized and look for ZITO to also be traded soon.
Prediction -30 WINS - LESS than 2004 season.

2005-03-20 18:39:49

11. Voxter

My money would be on the Royals, as well. It would have been on the D-Rays, but Alomar's retirement probably gets Upton into the lineup, adding a win or two. It's gonna be a tight race; if Troy Glaus goes down, Arizona will be in real trouble, too.

I'm resisting the urge to say something to this McEwing fellow . . .

Advertisement