User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.4135 seconds
58 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Primate Studies > Discussion
| ||||||||
Primate Studies — Where BTF's Members Investigate the Grand Old Game Thursday, October 30, 2014Loser Scores 2014Bill James came up with Loser Scores after the 2010 season, in an effort to measure how the Pirates’ string of losing seasons compared to other lengthy stretches of bad baseball. I’ve updated the totals every year since then. You compute Loser Scores in this fashion: 1. A team that has a losing season adds to its Loser Score the total of games under .500, plus the number of consecutive seasons that the team has been under .500. Updated Loser Scores through 2014: Team 2013 W L Games Under Loser Score 2014 W L Games Under Loser Score Diff PIT 94 68 -26 543 88 74 -14 420 -123 KCR 86 76 -10 436 89 73 -16 333 -103 HOU 51 111 60 205 70 92 22 233 28 CHC 63 99 36 175 73 89 16 196 21 COL 74 88 14 153 66 96 30 187 34 SEA 71 91 20 185 87 75 -12 155 -30 BAL 85 77 -8 254 96 66 -30 148 -106 MIN 66 96 30 102 70 92 22 128 26 MIL 74 88 14 129 82 80 -2 114 -15 SDP 76 86 10 96 77 85 8 108 12 MIA 62 100 38 95 77 85 8 108 13 NYM 74 88 14 77 79 83 4 87 10 WAS 86 76 -10 161 96 66 -30 83 -78 ARI 81 81 0 42 64 98 34 77 35 CIN 90 72 -18 56 76 86 10 67 11 CHW 66 96 30 31 73 89 16 49 18 CLE 92 70 -22 63 85 77 -8 42 -21 PHI 73 89 16 17 73 89 16 35 18 TOR 74 88 14 39 83 79 -4 31 -8 TEX 91 72 -19 0 67 95 28 29 29 BOS 97 65 -32 0 71 91 20 21 21 TBR 92 71 -21 0 77 85 8 9 9 ATL 96 66 -30 0 79 83 4 5 5 SFG 76 86 10 11 88 74 -14 0 -11 DET 93 69 -24 7 90 72 -18 0 -7 LAA 78 84 6 7 98 64 -34 0 -7 LAD 92 70 -22 0 94 68 -26 0 0 NYY 85 77 -8 0 84 78 -6 0 0 OAK 96 66 -30 0 88 74 -14 0 0 STL 97 65 -32 0 90 72 -18 0 0 The Pirates are still working off the kinks of 1992-2012, so even their second consecutive non-losing season takes them only down to 420. The Astros’ recent run of futility still has them only third-worst. The Rangers got to zero for the first time in franchise history in 2012. The Rays got there in 2013 for the first time. Both backslid in 2014. The Tigers, on the other hand, finally got back to zero for the first time since 1988. It took six straight seasons of .500 or better for Detroit to wipe out 314 Loser Score points, which is where they were in 2008. After 2005 the Tigers were at 465; they’ve been at least .500 in every season since then except for 2008. The Yankees have been at zero since 1995. I expect that streak to end in the next year or two. As I pointed out earlier, had the Royals won the World Series they’d have gone from 436 to zero, which would have been the second largest deficit wipeout in history, trailing only the 1914 Miracle Braves (531) and moving ahead of the 1969 Mets. The Padres have never been at zero, the only franchise not to touch it; their best Loser Score in their history is 25, which they reached after the 2007 season. The Cubs haven’t been at zero since 1946; that run of 68 straight above-zero years is the longest run of above-zero scores in MLB history; beating the 65-year run with which the Browns/Orioles franchise started their history. |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsLoser Scores 2017
(7 - 11:24am, Dec 22) Last: Mr Dashwood 2017-2021 CBA (1 - 10:47am, Oct 04) Last: villageidiom Loser Scores 2015 (12 - 2:28pm, Nov 17) Last: jingoist Loser Scores 2014 (8 - 2:36pm, Nov 15) Last: willcarrolldoesnotsuk Winning Pitcher: Bumgarner....er, Affeldt (43 - 8:29am, Nov 05) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick What do you do with Deacon White? (17 - 12:12pm, Dec 23) Last: Alex King Loser Scores (15 - 12:05am, Oct 18) Last: mkt42 Nine (Year) Men Out: Free El Duque! (67 - 10:46am, May 09) Last: DanG Who is Shyam Das? (4 - 7:52pm, Feb 23) Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Greg Spira, RIP (45 - 9:22pm, Jan 09) Last: Jonathan Spira Northern California Symposium on Statistics and Operations Research in Sports, October 16, 2010 (5 - 12:50am, Sep 18) Last: balamar Mike Morgan, the Nexus of the Baseball Universe? (37 - 12:33pm, Jun 23) Last: The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Sabermetrics, Scouting, and the Science of Baseball – May 21 and 22, 2011 (2 - 8:03pm, May 16) Last: Diamond Research Retrosheet Semi-Annual Site Update! (4 - 3:07pm, Nov 18) Last: Sweatpants What Might Work in the World Series, 2010 Edition (5 - 2:27pm, Nov 12) Last: Mr Dashwood |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.4135 seconds |
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. TomH Posted: November 01, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4833517)I would offer a small adjustment; a team who *plays in* a World Series should get their Loser Score cut additionally by half, or 80 points, whichever is greater. It seems wrong to see the Royals still far far "ahead" of the Cubbies.
What is the loser score for the Orioles since they moved to Baltimore? How about the Nationals and the Expos each separately? (At what loser score did the Expos end their life in Montreal?) What about the other relocated franchises (Athletics, Giants, Dodgers, Braves, etc.) in each city?
The Browns were at 854 when they moved to Baltimore in 1954. They went to zero in 1966 because the Orioles won the World Series that year. Based on strictly their Baltimore history, they'd have gotten to zero for the first time two years earlier, in 1964. They peaked at 110 for Baltimore only after 1959. Their history since 1966 would have been identical, obviously.
After 2004, the Expos were at 118. The Nationals would have started out at zero after going 81-81 in 2005, then peaked at 169 (instead of 275) after 2011. They'd be at 29 now.
The Dodgers aren't very interesting; their history doesn't change at all. They were at zero after 1957, and won the WS in their second year in LA, wiping out the 13 they'd accumulated in their first year.
The Giants were at 39 when they left New York. It took them four years to wipe those points out. They started in SF with 14 straight winning seasons, so they wouldn't have had anything other than zero until 1972.
The Braves were at 169 after their final season in Boston, a total which they wiped out by 1956 after moving to Milwaukee. They never had a losing season there, so when they moved to Atlanta they were at zero.
The A's were at 402 following their last season in Philadelphia, with a string of two losing seasons, and never had a winning season in KC. Based strictly on their time in Kansas City they'd have left for Oakland with a score of 486 (they were actually at 914) - which would still have been the highest in the majors, just ahead of the Cubs. They started in Oakland with four straight winning seasons prior to their three-year WS run - when they won it all in 1972 for the first time they had cut their score down to 219.
The original Senators were at 463 when they moved to Minnesota in 1961. They'd have gone to zero in 1962 (which they didn't actually achieve until they won it all in 1987), would have had one-year dips in 1964 and 1968, then would have been above zero from 1971 through 1987, except for one year in 1977.
The Brewers racked up 35 points in their lone season in Seattle. They zeroed out the total points in 1982, and they'd have still done so without their year as the Pilots, peaking at 224 instead of 267 after 1977. When they moved to the NL in 1997 they were at 69; counting only their NL years from 1998 forward they'd be at 71 now instead of 114.
Finally, Houston was at 140 two years ago, with four straight losing seasons before the move to the AL. Their two years in the AL, standing alone, would rate at 85.
-- MWE
YEARS WINNING WORLD PLAYOFFS YEARS WINNING WORLD PLAYOFFS
SINCE . IT ALL SERIES . . . . . . . . SINCE . IT ALL SERIES
RED SOX . 1 . . . 1 . . . . 1 . . . . BRAVES . 19 . . 15 . . 1
RAYS..... xxx . . 6 . . . . 1 . . . NATIONALS xxx . xxx . . 0
ORIOLES . 31 . . 31 . . . . 0 .. . . PHILLIES . . 6 . . 5 . . 3
YANKEES. 5 . . . 5 . . . . 2 . . . . . . METS . 28 . . 14 . . 8
BLUE JAYS 21 . 21 . . . 21 . . . . MARLINS . 11 . .11 . . 11
then I got tired of manual formatting
WHITE SOX 9 9 6 CARDINALS 3 1 0
TIGERS 30 2 0 PIRATES 35 35 1
TWINS 23 23 4 REDS 24 24 1
INDIANS 66 17 1 BREWERS xxx 32 3
ROYALS 29 0 0 CUBS 106 69 6
ATHLETICS 25 24 1 DODGERS 26 26 0
ANGELS 12 12 0 D- BACKS 13 13 3
RANGERS xxx 3 3 GIANTS 0 0 0
MARINERS xxx xxx 13 ROCKIES xxx 7 5
ASTROS xxx 9 9 PADRES xxx 16 8
I mean, the KC Royals were two runs away from having the best possible "loser score", but instead they have the second-to-worst?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main