PDA

View Full Version : Worst World Series Team ever?



killuminati35
10-20-2006, 02:23 PM
I noticed in another thread that apparently the 1973 Mets only won one more game than the Cardinals did this year, but I was wondering if any other teams come to mind that are like this years Cardinals? They are really, really average not something that I invision be able to go to the World Series. Again, this isn't really to bag on the Cardinals, they made it, my hat is off to them. I'm just wondering if any posters on here can think of a team that was worse and made it to the World Series. My recollection of past World Series is awful.

westofyou
10-20-2006, 02:29 PM
1987 Twins 85-77

Scored 786 runs, Allowed 806 runs. Pythagorean W-L: 79-83

dabvu2498
10-20-2006, 02:29 PM
1987 Minnesota Twins (85-77 also).

Game 1 lineup:

Minnesota Twins
Gladden lf
Gagne ss
Puckett cf
Gaetti 3b
Baylor dh
Brunansky rf
Hrbek 1b
Lombardozzi 2b
Laudner c
Viola p

Dang, woy beat me by mere seconds...

tsj017
10-20-2006, 02:35 PM
Don't forget the '73 Mets, who won the Eastern Division with a record only a few games over .500--and then went on to upset the heavily favored Reds in the playoffs (highlighted by the Rose/Harrelson brawl). The Mets then took the Oakland A's--in the midst of their early-70s dynasty--to seven games in the Series.

westofyou
10-20-2006, 02:41 PM
The Mets at least had pitching and a positive RD.

Scored 608 runs, Allowed 588 runs. Pythagorean W-L: 83-78

tsj017
10-20-2006, 02:50 PM
The Mets at least had pitching and a positive RD.

Scored 608 runs, Allowed 588 runs. Pythagorean W-L: 83-78

That's pretty close to their actual record.

redsupport
10-20-2006, 03:21 PM
1988 dodgers used mike davis as one of their sluggers, they were rancid

cumberlandreds
10-20-2006, 03:51 PM
1988 dodgers used mike davis as one of their sluggers, they were rancid


They were the first one's that came to my mind. They did however win 94 games that season. They would be one of the poorest teams that I have seen win the WS. The 84 Padres and the 96? Padres didn't seem all that good either.

mth123
10-20-2006, 07:39 PM
This won't be popular. The 1990 Reds were 91 - 71, but if you look a little more closely, the team was only average for most of the year. In 1990, baseball was coming off a strike or a lock-out in Spring Training and the season started before most teams were really ready. Since everyone had starting pitching problems at the beginning of the year, the Reds used its great bullpen to pull out to a big lead early. After everyone's Pitching caught-up the Reds struggled to play .500 ball.

The Reds pitching, specifically Rijo, got hot in the post season and carried the Reds to the WS title.

We'll never know, but you could make an argument that in a season with a regular spring, the Reds may not have even made the post season.

Please don't hate me. Just participating in the discussion.

tsj017
10-20-2006, 07:52 PM
This won't be popular. The 1990 Reds were 91 - 71, but if you look a little more closely, the team was only average for most of the year. In 1990, baseball was coming off a strike or a lock-out in Spring Training and the season started before most teams were really ready. Since everyone had starting pitching problems at the beginning of the year, the Reds used its great bullpen to pull out to a big lead early. After everyone's Pitching caught-up the Reds struggled to play .500 ball.

The Reds pitching, specifically Rijo, got hot in the post season and carried the Reds to the WS title.

We'll never know, but you could make an argument that in a season with a regular spring, the Reds may not have even made the post season.

Please don't hate me. Just participating in the discussion.

This is a completely valid observation.

After a very hot start, the Reds had something like a 12-game lead by mid-June. Then they cooled off, playing (I think) .500 ball at best the rest of the way. Both the Giants and the Dodgers made runs at them, but the Reds were able to win big games down the stretch when they needed to. Once they got in the playoffs, they cruised from there.

westofyou
10-20-2006, 07:55 PM
This is a completely valid observation.

After a very hot start, the Reds had something like a 12-game lead by mid-June. Then they cooled off, playing (I think) .500 ball at best the rest of the way. Both the Giants and the Dodgers made runs at them, but the Reds were able to win big games down the stretch when they needed to. Once they got in the playoffs, they cruised from there.

By Month


Month W L ERA
April 13 3 3.23
May 17 9 2.59
June 16 14 3.60
July 14 15 3.39
August 15 14 3.73
September 14 15 3.75
October 2 1 2.67

Robb
10-20-2006, 08:01 PM
88 Dodgers were very similar.

1 hitter who batted over .300.

schroomytunes
10-20-2006, 10:00 PM
Regardless of records, games are played on the field, I for one cant stand Larussa, but you cant argue that when your backs against the wall, these guys always seem to find a way to win. That's not coachable, the Cardinals are a definition of "team" they do the little things right, and they have deserved the opportunity to play for the WS title. I am kinda on the fence for this series. 1) everyone knocked the NL central as being weak, wouldnt it be cool if they won the whole thing? and 2) I hate the cards. So either way I have nothing against the Tigers, they are the best team here, I just want a game 7 series. Who wouldn't want anything less?

macro
10-21-2006, 01:39 AM
Don't forget the '73 Mets, who won the Eastern Division with a record only a few games over .500--and then went on to upset the heavily favored Reds in the playoffs (highlighted by the Rose/Harrelson brawl). The Mets then took the Oakland A's--in the midst of their early-70s dynasty--to seven games in the Series.

The Reds had the best record in MLB at 99-63 that year. It was a crying shame that they lost that NLCS. Another shot at Oakland would've been nice.

MrCinatit
10-21-2006, 08:54 AM
I could cheat and say the 1944 Browns...but those were unique circomstances.

westofyou
10-21-2006, 11:42 AM
I could cheat and say the 1944 Browns...but those were unique circomstances.

That actually was a good team, chock full of 4 F guys, Bill DeWitt won The Sporting News Executive of the year award for GMing that crew, he also won one in 1961 for the Reds, IIRC he might be the only guy to win it in both leagues (except maybe Schuerholtz perhaps)

M2
10-21-2006, 03:57 PM
The '97 Indians and Marlins had some name talent, but I still can't figure out how either one managed to get as far as the World Series. Hard to figure how the '85 Royals amounted to anything too.

redsupport
10-21-2006, 04:01 PM
the royals had a great player named Don Denkinger

Falls City Beer
10-21-2006, 04:13 PM
88 Dodgers.

I think a couple of those late 90s Braves' squads were bad (99 in particular, was a pretty crummy version of that squad).

OnBaseMachine
10-21-2006, 05:19 PM
2006 Cardinals.

PuffyPig
10-21-2006, 05:36 PM
This won't be popular. The 1990 Reds were 91 - 71, but if you look a little more closely, the team was only average for most of the year. In 1990, baseball was coming off a strike or a lock-out in Spring Training and the season started before most teams were really ready. Since everyone had starting pitching problems at the beginning of the year, the Reds used its great bullpen to pull out to a big lead early. After everyone's Pitching caught-up the Reds struggled to play .500 ball.

The Reds pitching, specifically Rijo, got hot in the post season and carried the Reds to the WS title.

We'll never know, but you could make an argument that in a season with a regular spring, the Reds may not have even made the post season.

Please don't hate me. Just participating in the discussion.


But the Reds led the division from start to finish becoming (I believe) the first team to be in first place the entire season.

It'd hard to say a team was lucky when they led from start to finish. And it's head to say they struggled to play .500 ball when their worst month was 14-15. They were a pretty consistent team led by probably the best 3 bullpen pitchers (as a group) ever.

They showed the regular season was no fluke by sweeping the heavily favoured A's in 4 games.

The Reds had good starting pitching, a great bullpen , and a very good blend of power and speed, and good defense. Not a great team, but solid every where.

westofyou
10-21-2006, 05:40 PM
88 Dodgers.

Teams with 2.88 Team ERA's who finish 7th in runs scored and win 94 games are usually considered good teams, let's put it another way, The Reds have won 94 games only 5 times outside of the 70's (when they did it 6 times)

PuffyPig
10-21-2006, 06:22 PM
Teams with 2.88 Team ERA's who finish 7th in runs scored and win 94 games are usually considered good teams, let's put it another way, The Reds have won 94 games only 5 times outside of the 70's (when they did it 6 times)

Yes, but the 88 Dodgers didn't have Suppan.:laugh:

Dom Heffner
10-21-2006, 06:24 PM
After a very hot start, the Reds had something like a 12-game lead by mid-June. Then they cooled off, playing (I think) .500 ball at best the rest of the way. Both the Giants and the Dodgers made runs at them, but the Reds were able to win big games down the stretch when they needed to. Once they got in the playoffs, they cruised from there.

I used to debate this with a coworker all the time.

The way I see it is this: If you won 91 games, it doesn't matter when you won them.

If you spread it out over the year, or if you got them all at once, I mean, they all count the same. A win in April is equivalent to a win in September.

One might think that winning in September is more important because it gives you momentum for the post season, but the Reds put that to rest that year, didn't they?

I'll admit that was a frustrating season because they couldn't put away the Giants and Dodgers, but they won enough to do it.

As far as the shortened spring training- they played under the same rules as everybody else.

The Reds showed what it means to have just a couple good pitchers in the post season, though. Rijo was phenomenal.

mth123
10-21-2006, 07:27 PM
But the Reds led the division from start to finish becoming (I believe) the first team to be in first place the entire season.

It'd hard to say a team was lucky when they led from start to finish. And it's head to say they struggled to play .500 ball when their worst month was 14-15. They were a pretty consistent team led by probably the best 3 bullpen pitchers (as a group) ever.

They showed the regular season was no fluke by sweeping the heavily favoured A's in 4 games.

The Reds had good starting pitching, a great bullpen , and a very good blend of power and speed, and good defense. Not a great team, but solid every where.

I know they were in first wire to wire. From June on they were 2 games over .500. The April and May records had everything to do with no team having starters ready to go more than 5 innings and the Reds won battles of the pen. In a normal spring, that April and May record wouldn't have been there to carry them. They play the same way in April and May as they did when the league caught up, they win 83 or 84 games.

They still won the series. The team's greatest strengths (The Pen and Rijo) came through for them. That is how teams win sometimes.

vaticanplum
10-21-2006, 08:25 PM
But the Reds led the division from start to finish becoming (I believe) the first team to be in first place the entire season.

Nine teams have done this through history. The 90 Reds were the fifth.

1923 Giants
1927 Yankees
1955 Dodgers
1984 Tigers
1990 Reds
1997 Orioles
1998 Indians
2001 Mariners
2003 Giants

You'll note that with the exception of the 23 Giants, every single team who accomplished this through the Reds won the World Series, but not one since has even gotten there. I attribute this to the smaller divisions and to the longer playoff series nowadays. It's almost easier to accomplish that regular season wire-to-wire feat now, but it doesn't mean as much.

As a side note, three Reds were members of two of these teams: Eric Davis, Norm Charlton, and Randy Myers. Others include Randy Worrell, Geronimo Berroa, Jeffrey Hammonds, Arther Rhodes, and David Bell. I'm just a wealth of absolutely useless information.

M2
10-21-2006, 11:44 PM
The '90 Reds had a lot of players who had very good careers both before and after that series. They could hit, pitch, field and run.

The '88 Dodgers had a fine year, but the players from that team, by and large, went from a champagne celebration to the back of a milk carton.

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 11:13 AM
The '88 Dodgers had a fine year, but the players from that team, by and large, went from a champagne celebration to the back of a milk carton.

My take precisely.

I bloody HATED that offense.