1987, 61-101
The ignominious outfit that was featured as the cover story for Sports Illustrated's tradition-laden baseball preview issue.

The funny thing is that the six AL East winners from 1981-86 were, in order: the Yankees, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Detroit, Toronto and Boston. It was thus Cleveland's 'turn' in '87, and they had gone 84-78 in '86 and led the AL in runs scored.

But the 1987 Indians were horrible; for my money, the worst Indians team ever. They just flat-out reeked, in every possible way: the offense crashed and burned (12th in the AL in '87) and the pitching, which was already the worst in the league in 1986, somehow managed to be even worse in 1987. (Fun fact: Asking a 48-year-old to anchor your rotation is rarely a good idea.) Oh, and they were last in fielding percentage and attendance, too. My brother lived in NE Ohio at the time and we went to few games. Dear God.

But the 1987 Indians were horrible; for my money, the worst Indians team ever. They just flat-out reeked, in every possible way: the offense crashed and burned (12th in the AL in '87) and the pitching, which was already the worst in the league in 1986, somehow managed to be even worse in 1987. (Fun fact: Asking a 48-year-old to anchor your rotation is rarely a good idea.)

But it was Niekro and Carlton!

Joe Carter and Cory Snyder were big disappointments that year (Snyder was a big disappointment all the way around). That offense was supposed to be good.

This year's team won't lose 100 games, unless they hold a big fire sale. Their offense is good enough to net them at least 70 wins or so.

I predict they'll have their normal second-half surge, at which point Shapiro will be hailed as a genius.

My favorite stat on the 1987 Indians was Brook Jacoby's line: .300 with 32 homers and 69 RBI. That's pretty special.

Nevertheless, the '71 Indians had Gomer Hodge. They win.

1987, 61-101
The ignominious outfit that was featured as the cover story for Sports Illustrated's tradition-laden baseball preview issue.

And IIRC the reason that that team was on the cover was because SI tagged it as the BEST team in the Majors. Instead it turned out to be the first, the last, and the only team in history ever so honored, to finish with the worst record in baseball. Quite a trick when you think about it---during World War I one of Connie Mack's teams also went from first to worst, but the difference was that the A's actually went through the trouble of finishing first to begin with.

I'm surprised the '87 team's offense ranked that low...I know they weren't as good as they were supposed to be, but they still had a handful of players (Jacoby, Butler, Franco, Tabler) having pretty good years. '87 began Joe Carter's long run as the most overrated player in the universe.

The '91 team was completely imbalanced...had a way, way worse offense, and a quite respectable rotation (at least, for a team that lost as often as this one). I suppose which team's worse depends partially on aesthetics...the '87 team was more all-around bad, the '91 team's awfulness was concentrated in its offense.

And IIRC the reason that that team was on the cover was because SI tagged it as the BEST team in the Majors.

Nitpick--they actually "only" picked them as the best in the AL. (Bill James planted the "maximum possible error" fiction in his '88 Abstract, I think...) Pretty sure SI picked the Mets as the best team overall.

Nonetheless--pretty bad forecast on their part...

Nevertheless, the '71 Indians had Gomer Hodge. They win.

1971 Indians:
467 walks drawn
770 walks allowed

Their walk differential of -303 is the third worst in MLB history, behind only the 1915 and 1916 A's. (If you really want to see something impressive, check out the difference between the 1915 and 1916 A's).

The FBI is always right when it comes to SI. I just checked that 87 SI Preview issue, and they put both the Mets and the Reds above the Indians.

I refuse to believe that the Indians, Nate Silver's pick to win the AL Central, are going to lose 100 games. Inconceivable!

BBPro's W3 ratings for Cleveland:

37.5 wins
42.5 losses

.469 winning percentage, 76 win pace for full season. Assume they'll play like that over the next 82 games, and overall they'll win 69 games.

This team is a far cry from the truly awful Indians teams discussed above. Of course if there's a fire sale then all bets are off.

Hey, I picked them to win the division too (largely because I thought the AL Central was a crap-shoot). I was also the 2nd choice as Mets GM behind Steve Phillips.

My favorite stat on the 1987 Indians was Brook Jacoby's line: .300 with 32 homers and 69 RBI. That's pretty special.

And yet, last year Hanley Ramirez managed to hit .301 with 33 HR, and only drive in 67 runs. Amazing.

Quite a trick when you think about it---during World War I one of Connie Mack's teams also went from first to worst, but the difference was that the A's actually went through the trouble of finishing first to begin with.

Yeah, but at least Connie Mack had Federal League raids as an excuse.

The '16 A's don't get the attention of the '62 Mets or even the '35 Braves, but to me they are clearly the worst team in MLB since 1901. They finished 40 games behind the seventh-placed Senators (who might have finished at .500 if a rained-out game with the A's had been made up). The A's had a series in Chicago wiped out because of weather early on, making them up on their next trip to Comiskey, where the Sox swept a seven-game series from them, probably the only such series sweep in MLB history. Yes, the '16 A's were more than dreadful.

And yet, last year Hanley Ramirez managed to hit .301 with 33 HR, and only drive in 67 runs. Amazing.

Wasn't Hanley leading off last year? Plus he plays in the NL, so it's more understandable.

And yet, last year Hanley Ramirez managed to hit .301 with 33 HR, and only drive in 67 runs. Amazing.

Sure, but in Ramirez's case there's an obvious explanation: he was a leadoff hitter. He scored 125 runs.

But Jacoby batted in the middle-to-the-back of the lineup (rotating anywhere from 4th to 8th, mostly 6th-7th), in spots one is expected to be driving in some runs. He only scored 73 runs.

EDIT: Coke to Flynn.

The '16 A's don't get the attention of the '62 Mets or even the '35 Braves, but to me they are clearly the worst team in MLB since 1901

Bah! Cherry picking dates (I mean, yes, the leagues were re-organised at this point, but the '99 Spiders went 11-101 on the road (9-33 at home); true terribleness, and in Cleveland!)

The '16 A's don't get the attention of the '62 Mets or even the '35 Braves, but to me they are clearly the worst team in MLB since 1901. They finished 40 games behind the seventh-placed Senators (who might have finished at .500 if a rained-out game with the A's had been made up). The A's had a series in Chicago wiped out because of weather early on, making them up on their next trip to Comiskey, where the Sox swept a seven-game series from them, probably the only such series sweep in MLB history. Yes, the '16 A's were more than dreadful.

You're absolutely right about this. One of the more amusing bits of web browsing I can remember led me to discover the game report for Opening Day of 1915, which was the first game that the A's played under the "new regime," so to speak. As it turned out, they shut out the eventual World Champion Red Sox, and the reporter fairly gushed as to how those departed players weren't going to be missed after all. It was as if he were thinking of the 2001 Mariners or something, but in this case it lasted only one day.

I got beaten to the punch on the "Hanley hits leadoff" thing, but I remember Bill James noting that the usual Cleveland lineup involved Jacoby batting behind at least two of Joe Carter, Mel Hall, and Cory Snyder, none of whom were particularly good at getting on base.

I'm surprised they finished 12th in the AL though. Butler, Franco, Jacoby, Carter...doesn't sound like it should be a bad offense.

Bah! Cherry picking dates (I mean, yes, the leagues were re-organised at this point, but the '99 Spiders went 11-101 on the road (9-33 at home); true terribleness, and in Cleveland!)

Well, I'm sure even the Red Sox could top that, if Henry sold out to Steinbrenner and Steinbrenner then traded or sold Beckett, Lester, Pedroia, Youkalis, and the entire bullpen to the Yankees, which is roughly what happened to the Spiders that year.

I remember Bill James noting that the usual Cleveland lineup involved Jacoby batting behind at least two of Joe Carter, Mel Hall, and Cory Snyder, none of whom were particularly good at getting on base.

Well, yeah. It was a combination of Jacoby hitting vastly better with the bases empty than with ducks on the pond, and batting in a lineup which provided him with an unusually low frequency of ducks on the pond.

The '16 A's don't get the attention of the '62 Mets or even the '35 Braves, but to me they are clearly the worst team in MLB since 1901.

By one take, the 1954 A's were the worst team since 1900.

I'm surprised they finished 12th in the AL though. Butler, Franco, Jacoby, Carter...doesn't sound like it should be a bad offense.

Despite the 32 HRs, Carter's OPS+ was just 104, below average for a first baseman. Snyder hit 33 dingers, and his OPS+ was 89. Throw in sucking chest wounds like Tony Bernazard and Chris Bando, plus a useless bench, and the Tribe went from 85 runs better than average in '86 to minus 52 a year later.

But the real problem was the pitching: a whopping 161 runs allowed below average (down from minus 95 in '86). A team with that kind of pitching would've had trouble winning the pennant if they had the '27 Yankees offense...

Syndicate baseball in the 1890s had long-term, far-reaching effects. The four NL franchises that were dropped after 1899 (Baltimore, Cleveland, Louisville and Washington) were all generally considered "weak sisters" to franchises with the same ownership (respectively Brooklyn, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia). Three of the abandoned areas became poart of the upstart AL in 1901 once it pursued "major" status.

Without syndicate baseball, the landscape of the sport might have turned out very differently. Ban Johnson might still have challenged the NL (there were other angles, such as roughhouse play, that gave him ammunition), but he might have had to settle for other markets (Buffalo? Indianapolis? Stay in Milwaukee past 1901?). Possibly the 12-team NL would have eventually decided upon eastern and western divisions long before 1969.

Nate Silver's pick to win the AL Central

Actually, they were the pick of lots of people. Sound sabermetric types, people who get respect where certain other people are turned into pinatas by Repoz. Those who frequent Nationals' threads will be used to seeing Joey B. periodically making a pointed comment about saber-types forecasting a 72-win season for the Washington club. If he ever notices this - well, I'll have to drag up an election prediction he made a while back.

I predict they'll have their normal second-half surge, at which point Shapiro will be hailed as a genius.

This would help. But I don't think Shapiro is a genius. I think he's got a good case for being the most over-rated GM in the American League. So I won't be surprised if it doesn't happen.

Also, not that I watch the Indians a lot, but I suspect team morale is completely ruined. I'm not sure if morale is the same thing as chemistry, and thus banned from sound sabermetric writing, but as anyone who has really played sports (or done anything, really) knows, morale is vital. It's quite easy for a losing team to get dejected and not push themselves a little. The first thing good management does is to convince people that all things are possible, given the right level of resources and a commensurate effort.

By one take, the 1954 A's were the worst team since 1900.

Actually, this is his conclusion:

I'd choose the 1917 A's [he means 1916] as the worst team of the century, but I'd have to admit that the 1954 team belongs in the conversation.