Worst World Series Team ever?

[killuminati35]

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]

1987 Twins 85-77

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

[dabvu2498]

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]

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]

The Mets at least had pitching and a positive RD.

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

[tsj017]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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]

1988 dodgers used mike davis as one of their sluggers, they were rancid

[cumberlandreds]

Originally Posted by redsupport

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mth123

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]

Originally Posted by tsj017

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

88 Dodgers were very similar.

1 hitter who batted over .300.

[schroomytunes]

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]

Originally Posted by tsj017

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]

I could cheat and say the 1944 Browns...but those were unique circomstances.