Winning at Losing

Conor · October 2, 2008 at 6:11 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Most seasons with 100+ losses since 1977

4: Mariners, Royals & Tigers

3: Rays, Indians & Blue Jays

2: Pirates & Braves

1: Mets, Nationals/Expos, Twins, Brewers, Orioles, Giants, Padres, Athletics, Reds, Marlins & Diamondbacks

0: Cubs, Rangers, Angels, Phillies, White Sox, Rockies, Cardinals, Astros, Dodgers, Yankees & Red Sox

Most seasons with 90+ losses since 1977

11: Mariners & Mets

10: Rays

9: Pirates, Royals, Braves, Orioles & Tigers

8: Nationals/Expos, Cubs, Twins & Brewers

7: Indians, Padres, Giants & Rangers

6: Athletics, Angels, Phillies & White Sox

5: Reds & Blue Jays

4: Marlins & Rockies

2: Cardinals, Yankees, Dodgers, Astros & Diamondbacks

0: Red Sox

Comments

12 Responses to “Winning at Losing”

  1. Wishhiker on October 2nd, 2008 6:57 pm

    It’s pretty painful to think that a year ago I had no idea we’d be comparing to “other 100 loss seasons”…I thought that the franchise was past that if not truly competitive. It’s probably the best thing that could have happened for the future of the franchise though. A wake up call and a really good pick.

    Should this raise our estimation of signing a GM with ties to those “2” and “0” season teams like Hoyer, Woodfork, NG, etc.? Would that also lower the estimation of Avila. I guess that’s going too far.

  2. MKT on October 2nd, 2008 7:22 pm

    The Rays deserve some special notice, since they have been in operation a smaller number of years (so have the Diamonbacks, Marlins, and Rockies, but those teams have managed to avoid appearing so often on this Biggest Loser list).

    Interesting that the Mariners’ expansion cohort, the Blue Jays, have had 100+ losses almost as often as the Ms have, given the radically different success levels the teams have had (2 World Series appearances and championships for the Jays vs 0 for the Ms; .497 regular season winning percentage vs .470 for the Ms).

  3. mariners2009 on October 2nd, 2008 7:50 pm

    Thats right cubs fans, who are the bigger losers now? What a tough team to grow up loving…

  4. Conor on October 2nd, 2008 8:10 pm

    Should this raise our estimation of signing a GM with ties to those “2″ and “0″ season teams like Hoyer, Woodfork, NG, etc.? Would that also lower the estimation of Avila. I guess that’s going too far.

    Wishhiker – Yeah, I think that’s going a little far because, since the lists go back to ’77, there are teams that are currently very well-run near the top (Rays, Indians, Braves, etc.) and teams that you wouldn’t want to copy, like the Astros, near the bottom.

  5. SABRcat on October 2nd, 2008 8:56 pm

    Ouch. That is all this little list does to me. Ouch.

  6. bratman on October 2nd, 2008 9:24 pm

    Well at least I got a taste of good baseball memories today as I see Lou’s Cubs down 0-2 …

    clearly shot me back to 95.

    if you want to smile in good times, check out this great website I found (most of you might have already uncovered this gem).

    Gotta cheer for Lou in a season where I’ve had very little to cheer for all year.

  7. mln on October 3rd, 2008 2:42 am

    Hey, the Mariners have more big numbers beside their name than other teams!

    That’s good right?

  8. JMHawkins on October 3rd, 2008 9:11 am

    Wow, you’ve got to admire those Mets. 11 seasons with 90 or more losses, but they only allowed the needed to dip below 100 once. They know how to Buckle It Up And Get After It when facing true disaster.

  9. Evan on October 3rd, 2008 10:04 am

    Compare the Mets to the Tigers, who dropped to 100+ losses almost half of the time they hit even 90+ losses.

    If they’re going to suck, they’re going to SUCK.

  10. joser on October 3rd, 2008 10:07 am

    Yay, uh, us

  11. chimera on October 3rd, 2008 11:51 am

    How about a list of teams who have lost 100+ games and spent 100+ million to do it???

  12. loganwol on October 3rd, 2008 4:28 pm

    I hate to see the Red Sox with the ‘0’s. But man they are a well managed team.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.