Could 2013 provide the most losses by a team in baseball history?

[thatcoolguy_22]

I present the 2013 Houston Astros

Houston Astros

Rotation
L. Harrell
B. Norris
J. Lyles
P. Humber
J. Cosart


1B B. Wallace
2B J. Altuve
3B M. Dominguez
SS T. Greene
C J. Castro
LF J. Martinez
CF J. Maxwell
RF F. Martinez

Bullpen
J. Veras (CL)
W. Wright
R. Cruz
X. Cedeno
J. Fields
H. Ambriz


The current record is held by the 62 Mets with 120 losses and the AL record is 119 by the 03 Tigers. With this roster now in the AL West, could we be a witness to a historic level of baseball futility?

I don't think its likely, but a 115+ loss season is definitely not out of the realm of possibility. What says Redszone? I think the entire NL Central is going to miss them this year. I do hope their rebuild works going into 2014.

[MoneyInTheBank]

They are definitely one of the worst teams in memory. IMO, it would be a real upset if they lost less than 105-110 games

[marcshoe]

I'm going to go on record and say that Houston loses fewer than 100 games this season. Yes, they're bad, but they're moving to the weaker (yes, I said that; it's time we got over the hype and realized that this is now a league where a team like Baltimore can rise up and make the playoffs) American League, and besides, the teams that seem to be extreme on either side of the number line rarely live up (or down) to expectations.

[Col_ IN Reds fan]

Looking at that roster I would have to say yes.

[Hap]

J Castro

Any starting lineup with any J Castro at any position is automatically a candidate for worst lineup in MLB.

[westofyou]

Are they as bad as that Tiger team from about ten years ago? Probably... but they probably still.win fifty games

[OGB]

I'm going to go on record and say that Houston loses fewer than 100 games this season. Yes, they're bad, but they're moving to the weaker (yes, I said that; it's time we got over the hype and realized that this is now a league where a team like Baltimore can rise up and make the playoffs) American League, and besides, the teams that seem to be extreme on either side of the number line rarely live up (or down) to expectations.

If they don't lose at least 100 games, I won't post at all next offseason. Look at their record last year after they traded all their vets and were left with a team that closely resembled this one.
They were 22-23 at one point and then went 33-84.

[Steve4192]

If they don't lose at least 100 games, I won't post at all next offseason. Look at their record last year after they traded all their vets and were left with a team that closely resembled this one.
They were 22-23 at one point and then went 33-84.

Stranger things have happened.

If they put up a wacky record in one-run games and outperform their Pythagorean wins by double digits, I could see them winning 63 games.

[Roy Tucker]

If they don't lose at least 100 games, I won't post at all next offseason. Look at their record last year after they traded all their vets and were left with a team that closely resembled this one.
They were 22-23 at one point and then went 33-84.

Be careful making such promises. People have lost their first-born sons on this site ;-)

[Tadasimha]

Be careful making such promises. People have lost their first-born sons on this site ;-)

Which is, undoubtedly, difficult to explain to your son.

[Nathan]

Honestly, I think they have a better team than the Marlins on paper.

[westofyou]

EASON
MODERN (1900-)

LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WINS displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINNING PERCENTAGE            YEAR     PCT       L        W     
1    A's                      1916     .235      117       36   
2    Braves                   1935     .248      115       38   
3    Mets                     1962     .250      120       40   
4    Senators                 1904     .252      113       38   
5    A's                      1919     .257      104       36   
6    Tigers                   2003     .265      119       43   
7    Pirates                  1952     .273      112       42   
8    Senators                 1909     .276      110       42   
9    Phillies                 1942     .278      109       42   
T10  Phillies                 1941     .279      111       43   
T10  Browns                   1939     .279      111       43   
T10  Red Sox                  1932     .279      111       43

[lidspinner]

Sometimes teams like this only need a few wins over big teams and all of a sudden they get a little confidence then momentum and voila, they are contending come the all star break....that's usually when those types of teams fail, ala the Pirates, but if that team gets a little confidence and brings up a few more young pitchers that opposing teams haven't seen, they could easily sneak away with 90 losses. I have seen weaker teams win more games...not many but it has happened.

[terminator]

I present the 2013 Houston Astros
The current record is held by the 62 Mets with 120 losses and the AL record is 119 by the 03 Tigers. With this roster now in the AL West, could we be a witness to a historic level of baseball futility?

And let us not forget the almost modern era 1899 Cleveland Spiders -- 20 wins and 134 losses for a .130 winning percentage. With an amazing RS = 529, RA = 1,252.

The following year? 81-68, 5th place, 730 RS, 683 RA. Only a +770 run differential turnaround.

[Crumbley]

I certainly hope so.