Royals vs. All-Time Worsts
The Royals currently sit at 11-35 and are on pace for 123 losses. They clearly are the wrost team in baseball this year. But how do they stack up against the all-time worst teams?
There's a lot of subjectivity in this ugly pageant. But we've narrowed the focus down to five teams, with a bias agaisnt selecting one team per era.
We start off with the 1916 Philly A's, who finished 36-117. Their offensive OPS is .612, which seems really bad but was actually 96th percentile in the AL that year. We don't have pitching OPS stats that year. But the A's gave up 1.2 runs more per game than the next most generous team (31 percent more than the Tigers allowed that year). The A's 19 homers were second most in the AL that year. But they allowed 26, second worst. Ace Elmer Myers walked 168 batters (in 315 innings). The A's led the league in walks allowed 715, which will make the sabermatricians happy.
We now sail through this putrescence all the way to 1935, where we come across the stink of the Boston Braves (38-115). Their .671 OPS was 91 percent the league average. But the Phillies had a worse OPS and the Phillies also allowed more runs per game (yet Philly finished 64-89). Ace Frank Frankhouse struck out 64 in 230.7 innings. OF Wally Berger carried the offense with 34 homers and 130 RBI while no other starter hit more than five homers. (Babe Ruth did have six jacks in 72 Abs before retiring in-season.)
Next up, the 1962 Mets at 40-120. 88th percentile with a .643 OPS, tied for Houston for the league's worst mark (but the Colt 45s scored less runs per game). The staff allowed 5.89 runs per game, .79 or 15 percent worse than the next worst team, the Cubbies (5.10), which is nowhere near as bad as the 1916 A's. Roger Craig famously lost 24 games. The Mets actually led the league in offensive walks (sorry, sabermetricians). Richie Ashburn had 81 BBs and 39 Ks on his way to compiling a .424 OBP, a mark topped by only John Olerud and Edgardo Alfonzo in team history.
Our first foray into modernity is the 1979 Blue Jays at 53-109, The 1979 Oakland A's had a worse offense, though Toronto finished in the 81st percentile in OPS. The Blue Jays did allow the most runs per game, but just one-hundredth more than the A's. In fact, you can make a case that Oakland, not Toronto was the worst team in the league that year. Back to Toronto, Bob Bailor started the entire year in right field despite just one homer and a .229 average. Danny Ainge started the most games at second after ending his season with the Celtics, but had a .555 OPS in 308 ABs.
Remember the 2003 Tigers, 43-119? It seems just like yesterday, doesn't it? Again, in the 81st percentile in OPS, but this was by far the worst offensive mark around. The pitching was also putrid, at 5.73 RPG, second worst to Texas. Five offensive starters had a slugging percentage at or below .373. SS Ramon Santiago had over 400 Abs despite a .576 OPS. Finally, we can have some OPS differential to stack up against the Royals. The Tigers team OPS .675/allowed .813 for a differential of minus .138, which is REALLY bad.
Now, back to the future with the 2006 Royals. Net OPS for them is minus .143 (.709 for/.852 against). The Mariners and Angels actually have worse offenses, at least so far. But the Royals do have the worst pitching. Last in K/BB ratio (1.25; Twins are first), 27th in Ks (Mets are first), second to the Blue Jays in most homers allowed. The season totals are a little skewed by the fact that KC (along with Boston) has played the majors fewest games, two less than average at the moment.
We've made as strong case for the 1916 A's as the major's all-time worst team. But the Royals are right there with the 2003 Tigers in the mix. The 1962 Mets are a shade behind, I think. Sure, the pitching was awful, but only half as bad as the 1916 A's relative to the next worst staff. And the Mets offense wasn't even the worst in the league that year (thanks to all those walks, I guess). But most of 2006 remains unwritten. So, let's go Royals! Do something historic in a so-bad-it's-good, "Cocktail" (the movie) kind of way.
There's a lot of subjectivity in this ugly pageant. But we've narrowed the focus down to five teams, with a bias agaisnt selecting one team per era.
We start off with the 1916 Philly A's, who finished 36-117. Their offensive OPS is .612, which seems really bad but was actually 96th percentile in the AL that year. We don't have pitching OPS stats that year. But the A's gave up 1.2 runs more per game than the next most generous team (31 percent more than the Tigers allowed that year). The A's 19 homers were second most in the AL that year. But they allowed 26, second worst. Ace Elmer Myers walked 168 batters (in 315 innings). The A's led the league in walks allowed 715, which will make the sabermatricians happy.
We now sail through this putrescence all the way to 1935, where we come across the stink of the Boston Braves (38-115). Their .671 OPS was 91 percent the league average. But the Phillies had a worse OPS and the Phillies also allowed more runs per game (yet Philly finished 64-89). Ace Frank Frankhouse struck out 64 in 230.7 innings. OF Wally Berger carried the offense with 34 homers and 130 RBI while no other starter hit more than five homers. (Babe Ruth did have six jacks in 72 Abs before retiring in-season.)
Next up, the 1962 Mets at 40-120. 88th percentile with a .643 OPS, tied for Houston for the league's worst mark (but the Colt 45s scored less runs per game). The staff allowed 5.89 runs per game, .79 or 15 percent worse than the next worst team, the Cubbies (5.10), which is nowhere near as bad as the 1916 A's. Roger Craig famously lost 24 games. The Mets actually led the league in offensive walks (sorry, sabermetricians). Richie Ashburn had 81 BBs and 39 Ks on his way to compiling a .424 OBP, a mark topped by only John Olerud and Edgardo Alfonzo in team history.
Our first foray into modernity is the 1979 Blue Jays at 53-109, The 1979 Oakland A's had a worse offense, though Toronto finished in the 81st percentile in OPS. The Blue Jays did allow the most runs per game, but just one-hundredth more than the A's. In fact, you can make a case that Oakland, not Toronto was the worst team in the league that year. Back to Toronto, Bob Bailor started the entire year in right field despite just one homer and a .229 average. Danny Ainge started the most games at second after ending his season with the Celtics, but had a .555 OPS in 308 ABs.
Remember the 2003 Tigers, 43-119? It seems just like yesterday, doesn't it? Again, in the 81st percentile in OPS, but this was by far the worst offensive mark around. The pitching was also putrid, at 5.73 RPG, second worst to Texas. Five offensive starters had a slugging percentage at or below .373. SS Ramon Santiago had over 400 Abs despite a .576 OPS. Finally, we can have some OPS differential to stack up against the Royals. The Tigers team OPS .675/allowed .813 for a differential of minus .138, which is REALLY bad.
Now, back to the future with the 2006 Royals. Net OPS for them is minus .143 (.709 for/.852 against). The Mariners and Angels actually have worse offenses, at least so far. But the Royals do have the worst pitching. Last in K/BB ratio (1.25; Twins are first), 27th in Ks (Mets are first), second to the Blue Jays in most homers allowed. The season totals are a little skewed by the fact that KC (along with Boston) has played the majors fewest games, two less than average at the moment.
We've made as strong case for the 1916 A's as the major's all-time worst team. But the Royals are right there with the 2003 Tigers in the mix. The 1962 Mets are a shade behind, I think. Sure, the pitching was awful, but only half as bad as the 1916 A's relative to the next worst staff. And the Mets offense wasn't even the worst in the league that year (thanks to all those walks, I guess). But most of 2006 remains unwritten. So, let's go Royals! Do something historic in a so-bad-it's-good, "Cocktail" (the movie) kind of way.
Entry #114865380077057230 posted by Catherine Salfino at 10:29 AM
<< Home