Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Another data point: The Milwaukee/St.Louis/Baltimore franchise was above zero from its inception until the Orioles won the World Series in 1966. The franchise went above 200 for the first time in 1911, and stayed there until 1966, reaching a high of 931 in 1956. The series win in 1966 took the franchise from 236 to zero; if they had not won the Series that year it would have taken them until 1970 to clear the books. In 1967 the Orioles finished 9 games under .500 (Loser Score 10) but they immediately erased that in 1968 and stayed at zero until 1986. Since 1986, however, the franchise has finished a season at zero exactly once, in 1997.
The Red Sox are at 25 after the 2012 season. They have been higher than 25 only once since 1969, that being 31 after the run of three straight losing seasons ended in 1994. The 86-58 finish in 1995 immediately erased that.
I assume that Cleveland's first year as a professional franchise it started out with a Loser Score of 100?
7.BDC posted on October 15, 2012 at 04:24 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Enough fans in Texas can remember the entire history of the Rangers franchise that the clearing of the Loser Score really does seem to me to correspond to a general community acceptance that they might be OK after all. In fact, in terms of local feelings, you'd have to start them off without all the Washington baggage; at that rate they'd have cleared the books a little while back, and that's also when fan interest in them around here really surged. (As a contrast, nobody quite believed the 1990s team was really superior, and the playoffs seemed to prove it.)
For a team like the Red Sox, I wonder how much the years in the wilderness really factor in, any more. They were last bad for an extended period in the 1960s, and the 1930s-and-earlier badness is now largely beyond human memory. (Though I do know one living person who says he was a Braves fan till Ted Williams came up; he grew up in the '30s thinking the Red Sox were just endemically terrible.)
SdeB: The current Indians franchise started in 1901, going 54-82 for a Loser Score of 29. The 1879 Cleveland Blues were 27-55, also a Loser Score of 29. The second Cleveland franchise, which became the Spiders, were 39-92 in their first season, a Loser Score of 54. That team, by the way, had cleared the books by 1898, after seven straight winning seasons, but wound up their professional life with a Loser Score of 115, all based on 1899.
BDC: You're probably correct in that. They would have peaked at 142 in 1988 (which was probably about the low point for the franchise in Texas) and then gone to zero in 1999; they would not have gone back above 100 since.
The Red Sox weren't really bad in the 1960s; they peaked at 165 in 1966, and except for the three-year stretch between 1964-1966 they've been below 100 consistently since 1940. It's generally getting harder for teams to stay really bad, which is why the Pirates' stretch is so remarkable in a way. The Red Sox went from 0 to 637 in a span of 15 years (1919-1933), but even with that it was mostly during the last 10 years of that stretch that they were horrible; after 5 years they were only at 95. It took the Pirates 20 years to get to 632.
Franchise Season W L Under WS Loser Score PIT 2012 79 83 4 N 632 KCR 2012 72 90 18 N 496 BAL 2012 93 69 -24 N 328 WAS 2012 98 64 -34 N 214 SEA 2012 75 87 12 N 161 HOU 2012 55 107 52 N 140 COL 2012 64 98 34 N 136 CHC 2012 61 101 40 N 135 MIL 2012 83 79 -4 N 114 CLE 2012 68 94 26 N 94 CIN 2012 97 65 -32 N 93 SDP 2012 76 86 10 N 83 MIN 2012 66 96 30 N 69 DET 2012 88 74 -14 61 NYM 2012 74 88 14 N 58 MIA 2012 69 93 24 N 53 ARI 2012 81 81 0 N 52 BOS 2012 69 93 24 N 25 TOR 2012 73 89 16 N 23 OAK 2012 94 68 -26 N 19 TBR 2012 90 72 -18 N 15 ATL 2012 94 68 -26 N 0 CHW 2012 85 77 -8 N 0 LAA 2012 89 73 -16 N 0 LAD 2012 86 76 -10 N 0 NYY 2012 95 67 -28 0 PHI 2012 81 81 0 N 0 SFG 2012 94 68 -26 0 STL 2012 88 74 -14 0 TEX 2012 93 69 -24 N 0
Detroit can still go to zero by winning the World Series, as noted earlier.
-- MWE
10.Harold posted on October 16, 2012 at 01:04 AM #hit 0 | hit 0
Wow, this is awesome. This is the kind of thing that Bill James is often great at -- coming up with a formula to represent a concept, and playing with it (iterating) until it "feels" right. As in, there's no theoretical reasoning for why this formulation represents reasoning, but it appears like something he's played with quite a bit to get it to come out right, and the results that Mike E describes sure make it sound that way.
And there's nothing wrong with that! I mean, the whole subject domain here is subjective: how much of a loser does this franchise seem to be any time? So working the formula to get the results makes total sense. I can't argue with any of the results that Mike E reports above, so it seems to work for me.
I put a spreadsheet together with the current NLW teams, and created this graphic (hopefully the colors are intuitive). It's interesting to see that the Dodgers had a long losing streak that made them as pitiful as the Padres at their worst; and that those lows were pretty atypical.
11.Harold posted on October 16, 2012 at 02:18 AM #hit 0 | hit 0
Hey! How's everyone doing? Nothing to see here. Certainly not a double-post, that's not possible with this software implementation. Amirite?
12.Harold posted on October 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I'm loving this stuff. I put together a graph with all of the original 8 NL teams. It made it appear that we've had a ton of parity since the beginning of expansion, and I wondered whether it was really that the expansion teams were losing. So I added the 1960's expansion teams:
I think this does show the parity since the '60s, with a few long-term losers (the Padres their first 15 years, the Natspos the last 15 years, the Pirates the last 20 years), but things have been much better than the previous 60 years.
How about the Cardinals as perennial losers pre-Gas House Gang? Or the Phillies being so bad historically that they initially threw off the scale for the whole chart?
James covered a lot of this ground in his original article, where he listed the worst teams over time. The Phillies from 1918-1948 had one winning season in 31 years, and that was a 78-76 record in 1932 - because of that they never had 20 losing seasons in a row, but their overall performance was certainly far worse than what the Pirates have done over the last 20 years. Note that the A's during that period had losing seasons 20 times - James speculates that this contributed to the hard-hearted nature of Philadephia sports fans :)
James also notes, both in this article and in a couple of others in the book, that the data is starting to reflect a trend toward decreasing competitive balance in MLB - although it's still modest when compared to the wider fluctuations of pre-WWII baseball.
I have nothing of value to add; I just wanted to say that this is awesome stuff, Mike.
15.mkt42 posted on October 18, 2012 at 12:05 AM #hit 0 | hit 0
Just awesome. Bill James' Loser Score correctly gives the Phillies the all-time record. Pittsburgh's not close to that level -- but OTOH it appears that their current Loser Score might be the worst that any team has ever achieved aside from the Phillies? That's still pretty historic, sort of like how Walter Johnson's victory total is way behind Cy Young's but is still mighty mighty impressive.
As a Mariner fan, I wonder what their Loser Score peaked at, given that they started their existence with what I believe is an expansion team record 14 straight losing seasons. If I did the calculations right, they peaked at 443 after the 1990 season; plenty bad but two current teams are worse than that, the Pirates and Royals.
The Mariners are close on the heels of the Padres though in terms of failling to achieve zero Losing Scores. If my calculations are right, the Mariners did reach zero after the 2003 season. But that was their only time at zero. So the Padres have a more futile record than the Mariners in that sense; OTOH they've never had a loser score above 400, as the Mariners have had several times.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Foghorn Leghorn posted on October 15, 2012 at 01:56 PM # hit 0 | hit 0How many teams are currently above zero? What's the Pirates' score?
-- MWE
There are 21 teams currently above zero, which is close to normal. As I noted in the article, the Pirates are at 632.
-- MWE
-- MWE
For a team like the Red Sox, I wonder how much the years in the wilderness really factor in, any more. They were last bad for an extended period in the 1960s, and the 1930s-and-earlier badness is now largely beyond human memory. (Though I do know one living person who says he was a Braves fan till Ted Williams came up; he grew up in the '30s thinking the Red Sox were just endemically terrible.)
BDC: You're probably correct in that. They would have peaked at 142 in 1988 (which was probably about the low point for the franchise in Texas) and then gone to zero in 1999; they would not have gone back above 100 since.
The Red Sox weren't really bad in the 1960s; they peaked at 165 in 1966, and except for the three-year stretch between 1964-1966 they've been below 100 consistently since 1940. It's generally getting harder for teams to stay really bad, which is why the Pirates' stretch is so remarkable in a way. The Red Sox went from 0 to 637 in a span of 15 years (1919-1933), but even with that it was mostly during the last 10 years of that stretch that they were horrible; after 5 years they were only at 95. It took the Pirates 20 years to get to 632.
-- MWE
Franchise Season W L Under WS Loser ScorePIT 2012 79 83 4 N 632
KCR 2012 72 90 18 N 496
BAL 2012 93 69 -24 N 328
WAS 2012 98 64 -34 N 214
SEA 2012 75 87 12 N 161
HOU 2012 55 107 52 N 140
COL 2012 64 98 34 N 136
CHC 2012 61 101 40 N 135
MIL 2012 83 79 -4 N 114
CLE 2012 68 94 26 N 94
CIN 2012 97 65 -32 N 93
SDP 2012 76 86 10 N 83
MIN 2012 66 96 30 N 69
DET 2012 88 74 -14 61
NYM 2012 74 88 14 N 58
MIA 2012 69 93 24 N 53
ARI 2012 81 81 0 N 52
BOS 2012 69 93 24 N 25
TOR 2012 73 89 16 N 23
OAK 2012 94 68 -26 N 19
TBR 2012 90 72 -18 N 15
ATL 2012 94 68 -26 N 0
CHW 2012 85 77 -8 N 0
LAA 2012 89 73 -16 N 0
LAD 2012 86 76 -10 N 0
NYY 2012 95 67 -28 0
PHI 2012 81 81 0 N 0
SFG 2012 94 68 -26 0
STL 2012 88 74 -14 0
TEX 2012 93 69 -24 N 0
Detroit can still go to zero by winning the World Series, as noted earlier.
-- MWE
And there's nothing wrong with that! I mean, the whole subject domain here is subjective: how much of a loser does this franchise seem to be any time? So working the formula to get the results makes total sense. I can't argue with any of the results that Mike E reports above, so it seems to work for me.
I put a spreadsheet together with the current NLW teams, and created this graphic (hopefully the colors are intuitive). It's interesting to see that the Dodgers had a long losing streak that made them as pitiful as the Padres at their worst; and that those lows were pretty atypical.
NL historical "loser scores"
I think this does show the parity since the '60s, with a few long-term losers (the Padres their first 15 years, the Natspos the last 15 years, the Pirates the last 20 years), but things have been much better than the previous 60 years.
How about the Cardinals as perennial losers pre-Gas House Gang? Or the Phillies being so bad historically that they initially threw off the scale for the whole chart?
James covered a lot of this ground in his original article, where he listed the worst teams over time. The Phillies from 1918-1948 had one winning season in 31 years, and that was a 78-76 record in 1932 - because of that they never had 20 losing seasons in a row, but their overall performance was certainly far worse than what the Pirates have done over the last 20 years. Note that the A's during that period had losing seasons 20 times - James speculates that this contributed to the hard-hearted nature of Philadephia sports fans :)
James also notes, both in this article and in a couple of others in the book, that the data is starting to reflect a trend toward decreasing competitive balance in MLB - although it's still modest when compared to the wider fluctuations of pre-WWII baseball.
-- MWE
As a Mariner fan, I wonder what their Loser Score peaked at, given that they started their existence with what I believe is an expansion team record 14 straight losing seasons. If I did the calculations right, they peaked at 443 after the 1990 season; plenty bad but two current teams are worse than that, the Pirates and Royals.
The Mariners are close on the heels of the Padres though in terms of failling to achieve zero Losing Scores. If my calculations are right, the Mariners did reach zero after the 2003 season. But that was their only time at zero. So the Padres have a more futile record than the Mariners in that sense; OTOH they've never had a loser score above 400, as the Mariners have had several times.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.