I'll always be amused by those Tigers being doomed to top the 1962 Mets for losses of 120, as the Tigers were 38-118 with an ongoing 10-game losing streak.

then out of nowhere, they won 5 of their last 6 games to go 43-119.

Craig Paquette wrapped up an 11-year MLB career by going 5-for-33 with no extra base hits and no walks. he was mercifully released before May 1.

then out of nowhere, they won 5 of their last 6 games to go 43-119.

Didn't they have a big comeback win in Game #162 where they won on a walk-off wild pitch by Jesse Orosco?

(fine - I'll look it up)

Yup. Down 8-0, the Tigers won 9-8. It was 8-1 at the 7th inning stretch.

It was also the last appearance of Orosco's career.

The '03 Tigers would win 8 of 10 against the '22 Reds.

Those Reds this year are REALLY off to a terrible start - ERA+ of 67 and that is higher than their team OPS+ of 63. Ugh. 4 regulars on the IL, just 4 hitters with a 100+ OPS+ (even counting guys with under 20 PA). Votto looks like he doesn't bother with a bat when hitting (20 OPS+, 12 BB 29 K in 90 PA. Guys with more than 1 start in the rotation all have ERA+'s of 81 or worse. Tyler Mahle leads with 25 IP over 6 starts, or 4 1/3 IP per start. Yikes. 3 different guys have saves, ERA+ of 146 - combined (65-51-30).

Phew. Guess things for the Reds can only get better. Can't they? The Baltimore Orioles in 1988 started 0-21 and in 1989 nearly won the AL East. The 2003 Tigers lost 119 but 3 years later were in the World Series. So yeah, quick turnarounds can happen, but they are rare. Still, at least that is a hope for the Reds fans.

Votto is slugging .135 this year, and now he's on the COVID list.

I was looking at their B-R page, and I thought, "man, they had a lot of guys who were 25 or 26 who later went on to be okay." But then I looked them up, and it's not really true. Carlos Pena had quite a good career. Brandon Inge and Craig Monroe both had a couple of decent seasons in their near future. But the rest of those guys were . . . woof.

Truly, it was the starting pitching that was the most spectacularly bad. Their best starter was Nate Cornejo, who actually managed to walk more dudes than he struck out. Not that their relievers were much better -- they did have Fernando Rodney, who was an OK pitcher for a while, though not really anything to write home about.

It's true that they were bad and young. And it's true that they were in the World Series three seasons later. But you know what? As far as I can tell, only two dudes who saw playing time in 2003 were on that world series team: Inge, who had become a 3B by then, and Nate Roberts, who made 8 starts in 2003 and was a pretty solid second starter in 2006.

The Tigers released Pena before that 06 season, and he looked like a bust till he hooked on with Tampa.

The only decent player that 03 team had was Dimitri Young. He spent most of 06 injured, and was terrible when he wasn't. Man, that's a massive amount of suckitude for one team.

Further that 2006 Tigers team was mostly built from without, especially on offense. Granderson was the major Tigers org guy, Inge was still around, Infante was useful. But even role players like Shelton, Monroe and Thames were picked up from elsewhere. The pitching was largely a product of the rebuild with Bonderman (although still not a full Tigers product), Robertson, Verlander and Zumaya. (Zach Miner was a pickup from the Braves.)

But the 2003 Tigers also weren't the product of a fire sale, they were just terrible. The biggest guys traded away in 2001-2 was Juan Encarnacion for Dmitri -- a trade of vets that worked out well for the Tigers -- and the trade of Weaver for Pena, German and Bonderman (a pretty great trade for the Tigers even if all three ended up disappointing a bit).

Now whether fans would rather see a terrible "young" team than a terrible "old" team I'm not so sure. Fans tend to get annoyed when their favorites aren't around anymore. The 2012 Cubs were pretty similar to the 2003 Tigers but I was under no illusions that I was looking at the future of the Cubs. I knew that other than Castro and Rizzo (who came up midseason) that I was looking at a bunch of placeholders and maybes ... and the worst Cubs team of my baseball lifetime. I could perfectly understand the logic behind a rebuild but that's still no excuse to make me watch 8 AAAA players (much less Joe Mather) just to find one Luis Valbuena. (Valbuena was a classic late bloomer with 9 WAR, 2 WAA from 26-30 and replacement-level in his other 1500 PA ... and $29 M in career earnings.)

I assume that one or more of MLB’s ‘official gaming partners’ must be taking action on the Reds besting the 1962 Mets record for ineptness, and that they may even be favored to do so, although it’s quite early. 3-22 is pretty awful - a .120 win percentage that over a full season would only get the Reds about halfway to the Mets 40 wins in 1962.

As far as I can tell, only two dudes who saw playing time in 2003 were on that world series team: Inge, who had become a 3B by then, and Nate Roberts, who made 8 starts in 2003 and was a pretty solid second starter in 2006.

This is Jeremy Bonderman erasure. Bonderman threw over 200 inning with a 111 ERA+ in 2006. Maroth also pitch for the 2006 team but not so well.

I just realized Dmitri Young's 2003 season was his career year -- .297/.372/.537, 29 homers, 144 OPS+, 3.4 WAR. Something kind of fascinating about a guy like Young putting up a perfectly solid, professional season while enveloped by the rank nonsense that was the 2003 Tigers. Either something sad and tragic about it or something kind of beautiful about it, depending on your point of view.

For worst ML team ever you start with the Cleveland Spiders 1899: 20-134 for a 130 win%, barely better than the Reds so far this year. Then the 1890 Pittsburgh Alleghenys (now known as Pirates) 23-113 - 169 %. For 1900 to now the Philadelphia Athletics of 1916 were pretty bad at 36-117 for a 235 win%. Then the Boston Braves 1935 at 38-115 248, then comes the '62 Mets 40-120 250 win %. To beat the Mets the Reds (now 3-22) would need to go 37-100 to end up 40-122 or a win% of 270 which is worse than any Reds team before this year has ever done - their franchise worst is 1934 52-99 344 win%. Only in 1982 did they lose 100 (61-101) - would've been a lot worse with Mario Soto (7.2 WAR as a starter with a 132 ERA+ over 257 2/3 IP).

Last time any team went 270 for win% (which the Reds need to do) was 2003 with those infamous Tigers going 265. So the Reds are a long ways away from catching the Mets for most losses, and even further from the Spiders for worst team ever, or the A's of 1916 for worst team since the AL came into being. But I know I'm cheering for it to happen - I just love history, even bad history, as long as it isn't my team :)

#10 ... probably less true in baseball than other sports but I call that the Ty Corbin principle. Corbin was a very solid NBA player who was either your "probably not quite good enough to be starting, let's limit him to 30 mins" or "excellent 6th man, let's give him 20 mins." (Also a personal favorite coming out of DePaul.) According to bb-r, on a per 36 min basis, the young Corbin was quite useful with 13 pts, 7.5 reb, 2.5 A and a couple of steals.

Then he got traded to the expansion TWolves where he played those 36 minutes per game (actually 37-39) and was probably the best player on the floor. Now things were running through him a bit more. That's not good to have Ty Corbin being the #1 guy on the floor but, in 90-91, he averaged 18 pts per game, with 7 rebounds, 4 assists and 2 steals. Except for points (shoot Ty! you're all we got), those are the same numbers he had before per 36 min but they look a lot better on per game or raw counts.

Moreover, 18/7/4/2 are, roughly speaking, Scottie Pippen's career per game averages and he went to the HoF. Now nobody thinks Corbin was in Pippen's class (not even me) and presumably Pippen on a non-Jordan team would have been leaned on a lot more. But still, for one magical season surrounded by stiffs, Corbin was Pippen. Part playing time, no doubt part touching the ball more, maybe a bit psychological about being "the man" and probably a good bit of being on the wrong end of 4th quarter blowouts and playing agsinst scrubs and relaxed defense giving open mid-range jumpers (one of his strengths).

Baseball obviously not basketball and, especially for hitters, you can do nothing about increasing the number of times they touch the ball every game and Young was getting plenty of PT in Cinci. Looking at his splits, he did crush it in low leverage PAs -- 335/405/646. Not surprisingly he got walked about once per 7.5 PA in high leverage situations which always helps the OBP. And 1 HR per 45 PA in high leverage; 1 per 24 in medium; 1 per 16 in low leverage. When about 40% of your PAs are low and another 40% are med, you get a lot of good pitches to hit. Still his production was quite good in all three splits.

Not much difference by pitcher type. Hit much better on the road but the Tigers were equally bad at home so that doesn't seem to be a function of leverage.

Fwiw, 538 still projects the Reds to 66 wins. That may be bullish, but I still think they’ll clear 50 wins, and I think them avoiding 100 losses is still more likely than getting 120 losses.

I’m not so sure about the Reds winning 50 games. Their players haven’t been unlucky - their components are legitimately bad, they’re going to have to cycle below replacement folks out for new players. And their minor league teams, particularly the pitching, are just ghastly. The whole system has a problem with control, it’s like they were drafting wild guys assuming they could teach control and were wrong.

Luis Castillo is obviously a huge add, but even he hasn’t been Luis Castillo in his rehab starts. After him there isn’t a lot of above replacement talent to step in and help the team regress to the mean. And they are going to keep trotting out some of these name veteran sub-replacement guys, e.g. Votto.

This was the Reds lineup yesterday:

TJ Friedl, RF
Brandon Drury, 2B
Tommy Pham, LF
Mike Moustakas, 3B
Tyler Stephenson, C
Colin Moran, 1B
Matt Reynolds, SS
Ronnie Dawson, DH
Albert Almora Jr, CF

Injuries and all that, but:

1) I wouldn't be shocked if there's players you've never heard of in this lineup. I count two for myself, and I'm a Reds fan (wavering).
2) How many of these players will still be in the league in 2024? One? This is the very definition of a replacement-level team. But at least Hunter Greene throws hard (8.71 ERA)!

1) I wouldn't be shocked if there's players you've never heard of in this lineup. I count two for myself, and I'm a Reds fan (wavering).

Let's just say if your 1B is a 3B castoff from the Pirates, this is not a good sign of things to come.

I’m not so sure about the Reds winning 50 games. Their players haven’t been unlucky - their components are legitimately bad,

For the most part the Reds players are performing well below their norms - Moustakas is a career 99 OPS+ hitter who is hitting 60 this year, Tyler Naquin is 101 career and 76 this year, Kyle Farmer is 79 and 60, Colin Moran is 99 and 34, Jonathan India is 112 and 82, Votto is 146 and a pathetic 20. Most of those guys will hit better over the course of the year.

Hunter Greene faced 18 hitters yesterday:

7 struck out
9 got hits - 5 were home runs
1 walk
1 out by a ball in play

So a BABIP of .800 (4-of-5).

For the most part the Reds players are performing well below their norms - Moustakas is a career 99 OPS+ hitter who is hitting 60 this year, Tyler Naquin is 101 career and 76 this year, Kyle Farmer is 79 and 60, Colin Moran is 99 and 34, Jonathan India is 112 and 82, Votto is 146 and a pathetic 20. Most of those guys will hit better over the course of the year.

right, this is the sort of simplistic analysis that is wrong. If you look at the underlying components of the stats, things that show signal faster, the hitters have just gotten actually worse in addition to being unlucky. Its an old lineup and everyone got worse at once. #### happens.

right, this is the sort of simplistic analysis that is wrong. If you look at the underlying components of the stats, things that show signal faster, the hitters have just gotten actually worse in addition to being unlucky. Its an old lineup and everyone got worse at once. #### happens.

It's some of both. Moustakas is washed up dog meat. Not sure that Farmer's numbers are outside of normal variance. Naquin's numbers are in line with what he did in 2018 and 2020. The others are very likely due for some regression.

But Lodolo is coming back soon! The future is bright!

I actually don't know what to make of that guy. He wasn't all that special his first two years at Texas Christian, was terrific as a junior and got taken 1.7. Reds give him 69 innings in the minors where he's unhittable, and then he's in the big leagues. (For 14 unimpressive innings so far.) Scouting reports seem to suggest mid-rotation innings eater, but I don't have enough data to come to my own assessment.

Time for the Reds to do something special - find a knuckleball pitcher and have him go every other day or something else nuts. If you stink regardless, at least do something no one else is doing. I miss knuckleball pitchers. Sign a few speed demons and let them loose - if they get on have them steal 2nd and 3rd if they can. I want a freakshow team!

The good news is the team can get better just by scouring the waiver wire.

right, this is the sort of simplistic analysis that is wrong. If you look at the underlying components of the stats, things that show signal faster, the hitters have just gotten actually worse in addition to being unlucky. Its an old lineup and everyone got worse at once. #### happens.

It's still just 25 games worth of data. It's not very predictive, no matter how granular you get.

then out of nowhere, they won 5 of their last 6 games to go 43-119.

Didn't they have a big comeback win in Game #162 where they won on a walk-off wild pitch by Jesse Orosco?

I was at that game! When the Tigers failed (succeeded?) to surpass the '62 Mets, I thought, "Geez...they can't even lose right...!"

Sure, the Reds won't keep playing this bad, it's just a bad team having a bad streak plus if fungible player X keeps putting up a 45 OPS+, you go get fungible player Y.

Would Votto's 122/276/135 be the worst end to an excellent hitter's career? It has the reliance on walks that I think we've seen before but boy is that bad. His previous worst month (barring a couple <20 PAs) was April 2016 with a 640 OPS.

Those rate stats look very similar to the end for the greatest 1B ever:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gehrilo01.shtml

We should all start a fund to find a cure for Joey Votto’s disease.

Would Votto's 122/276/135 be the worst end to an excellent hitter's career?

This Hall of Famer ended with 131/202/143 in 94 PA. Gehrig was 143/273/143 in 33 PA.

This Hall of Famer ended with 131/202/143 in 94 PA.

Baines is a HOFer, yes, but if he was an "excellent hitter", then I'm a lugnut.

Anyway, Baines' -8 OPS+ is one of two instances in which a DH/PH managed a negative OPS+ with at least 90 PAs, the other being Andre Thornton (-5) in 1987.

You remember, that was the year in which SI predicted Cleveland would win the AL East. [MORGAN FREEMAN VOICE: They did not.]

I wonder if Votto has 'sick of it' disease. Came up in 2007 - won division in 2010 and 2012 but lost in the division series both times. then in 2013 won the wild card but lost the wild card game. In 2020 just snuck into the playoffs and were out in the WC series. A total playoff record of 2-9 in his career there. For a likely HOF'er that has to hurt. He has a contract for $25 mil for 2023 and a $7 mil buyout for his 2024 option ($20 mil otherwise). But he will never see the playoffs again, unless he is traded. But he won't be traded unless he starts hitting. I'd love to see him come back and start hitting up a storm then get traded to a team that goes all the way. Ideally to Toronto - has the budget, a need for a strong LH bat, and he was born there. Sadly won't happen unless he really comes back strong and is willing (seems a lot of guys want to be single team players now).

Votto dropped from a 137 bounce back year after a 95-107 previous 2 years. I really hope he comes back and hits up a storm so his final year under contract doesn't result in a mid-season release.

I always wondered what would have happened had someone gone into a coma in the Fall of 2003 and woken up in the Fall of 2006.

"Hey, I'm a big baseball fan. What year is it? How long was I out? 3 years? The last thing I remember in 2003 the Yankees were in the World Series again, as usual. At the opposite end of that the Tigers were absolutely awful, they lost what, 119 games? So are the Yankees still dominating and are the Tigers still terrible? What's that, the Tigers are in the Series? Yeah, right, next thing you'll tell me is the Red Sox and White Sox have won the Series the last couple of years! What other jokes do you have to tell me?"

This Hall of Famer ended with 131/202/143 in 94 PA. Gehrig was 143/273/143 in 33 PA.

Baines may be in the Hall of Fame, but I would not call him a Hall of Famer. Semantics, I know.

Brian Giles wasn't quite as bad as those guys but gets points for volume -- his last season was .191/.277/.271 in 254 PA.

For the most part the Reds players are performing well below their norms - Moustakas is a career 99 OPS+ hitter who is hitting 60 this year, Tyler Naquin is 101 career and 76 this year, Kyle Farmer is 79 and 60, Colin Moran is 99 and 34, Jonathan India is 112 and 82, Votto is 146 and a pathetic 20. Most of those guys will hit better over the course of the year.

Votto and India haven't played since I wrote that, but Moustakas is now up to 107. Naquin is up to 107. Moran is up to 88.

right, this is the sort of simplistic analysis that is wrong.

Kyle Farmer is down to 51, so score one for 'zop's "component stats."

I don't know if you'd call this an Easter Egg (and I don't know if I would have picked up on it if I hadn't heard Ben Lindbergh talk about it on the Effectively Wild podcast), but there's a mention of the 2003 Detroit Tigers in the new Dr. Strange movie when someone from a different universe says in the background, (paraphrasing, since I don't remember the exact line) "The 2003 Detroit Tigers were one of the best teams ever!" It was a amusing.