Prev: Reds renew all coaches except...........
Next: 4 Best Records Move On
From: David Short on 7 Oct 2009 12:15
Worst Record in the game?

Three of us of us had the Pirates. Will Vaughn wrote in the Oriels.
Chuck had the Royals. Henry put in the Astros or the Padres. TuffGong,
JustTom, Scott Jones, John K and myself had the Nationals.

dfs
From: John Kasupski on 7 Oct 2009 12:53
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:15:43 -0400, David Short
<David.no.Short(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:

>Worst Record in the game?
>
>Three of us of us had the Pirates. Will Vaughn wrote in the Oriels.
>Chuck had the Royals. Henry put in the Astros or the Padres. TuffGong,
>JustTom, Scott Jones, John K and myself had the Nationals.
>
>dfs

This one seemed like a no-brainer to me, I was genuinely surprised that anybody
named any other teams. They were the worst last year (59-102), and they were
equally pathetic this year (59-103). They only played 161 games last year, so
they lost out on the opportunity to lose 103 two years in a row. Only a handful
of guys with decent offensive production and almost no pitching. They achieved
their W/L record on merit. :)

JK

From: Bob Braun on 7 Oct 2009 13:01

"John Kasupski" <w2pio(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:orgpc5p0e5blog6gv0h457iceajnh343jt(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:15:43 -0400, David Short
> <David.no.Short(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
>
>>Worst Record in the game?
>>
>>Three of us of us had the Pirates. Will Vaughn wrote in the Oriels.
>>Chuck had the Royals. Henry put in the Astros or the Padres. TuffGong,
>>JustTom, Scott Jones, John K and myself had the Nationals.
>>
>>dfs
>
> This one seemed like a no-brainer to me, I was genuinely surprised that
> anybody
> named any other teams. They were the worst last year (59-102), and they
> were
> equally pathetic this year (59-103). They only played 161 games last year,
> so
> they lost out on the opportunity to lose 103 two years in a row. Only a
> handful
> of guys with decent offensive production and almost no pitching. They
> achieved
> their W/L record on merit. :)
>
> JK

When you made your prediction, how many Reds position players would start
ahead of the guy the Nationals had in place?


From: HTP on 7 Oct 2009 14:01
On Oct 7, 9:53 am, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:15:43 -0400, David Short
>
> <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
> >Worst Record in the game?
>
> >Three of us of us had the Pirates. Will Vaughn wrote in the Oriels.
> >Chuck had the Royals. Henry put in the Astros or the Padres. TuffGong,
> >JustTom, Scott Jones, John K and myself had the Nationals.
>
> >dfs
>
> This one seemed like a no-brainer to me, I was genuinely surprised that anybody
> named any other teams. They were the worst last year (59-102), and they were
> equally pathetic this year (59-103). They only played 161 games last year, so
> they lost out on the opportunity to lose 103 two years in a row. Only a handful
> of guys with decent offensive production and almost no pitching. They achieved
> their W/L record on merit. :)
>
> JK

and alot of bad luck.

If you look at Pythagoreans, the worst teams are:

1. Washington 66-96
Kansas City 66-96
3. Pittsburgh 67-95
San Diego 67-95

Washington finished 7 games below thier pythagorean which is a hefty
total. IIRC they were already 10 games behind thier expected W-L by
the end of July.

The Pirates finished 5 games behind, the Royals were 1 game behind,
and the Padres finished 8 games AHEAD of expected. So in theory at
least, the Padres were essentially as bad as the Senators but were
able to squeek by in many more close games. The Pirates had to trade
away half thier team to be so bad.

Anyway, this is hairsplitting, the question specifically involved
"records", and the Senators were the worst either way. Grats JohnK on
the omniscience. Youre 2-for-2 so far.



From: John Kasupski on 8 Oct 2009 00:01
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:01:23 -0700 (PDT), HTP <tmbowman25(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> If you look at Pythagoreans, the worst teams are:
>
>1. Washington 66-96
> Kansas City 66-96
>3. Pittsburgh 67-95
> San Diego 67-95

Yeah, but Pythagoreans don't count in the standings. :-)

>Anyway, this is hairsplitting, the question specifically involved
>"records", and the Senators were the worst either way. Grats JohnK on
>the omniscience. Youre 2-for-2 so far.

Thanks, but don't get me wrong, the intent of my post wasn't to be beating my
chest here. Even a dead clock is right twice a day. I was just genuinely
surprised anybody could look at that pitching staff in Washington and conclude
that they'd improved at all over 2008.

JK

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Reds renew all coaches except...........
Next: 4 Best Records Move On