Master Index of Archived Threads


120 or Bust - 2006

Centerfield May 04 2006 10:43 AM

A month into the season, it looks like we have a few candidates to give our boys from '62 a run for their money. Our contestants are: 1. Kansas City (5-20, .200) The hapless Royals are still winless on the road and just placed Mike Sweeney on the DL with a bulging disk. 2. Pittsburgh (8-21, .276) Pittsburgh, meet Carlos Delgado. 3. Florida (7-18, .280) It doesn't help that they have to play the super-awesome Mets 19 times.

Elster88 May 04 2006 10:45 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 04 2006 11:21 AM

Shouldn't it be 121 or bust?

Yancy Street Gang May 04 2006 10:46 AM

Oooh, very nice! I still haven't gotten over that late-season winning streak the Tigers mounted a few years ago. I thought that record was going to fall. While Kansas City looks promising, I'd prefer to see Florida or Pittsburgh break it. That way, the Mets will lose both the major league and the National League record. It seems kinda cruel to root against the Pirates like that, though. So my preference is Florida. The Marlins have won two World Championships in the last ten years. They can stand to have a colossal losing season.

Edgy DC May 04 2006 10:49 AM

"How does it go? 'I cried because I had no shoes, until I met a man with no feet. And then I met a man with no legs. And then I met a Kansas City Royals fan.' " --- Minnesota Twins blogger

Centerfield May 04 2006 10:52 AM

Because of the rainout and the tie, the "record" has a few different facets. If we're looking at losses alone, obviously we would need 120 to tie, 121 to break. In order to "break" the record for lowest win percentage, a team would have to lose 122, assuming no ties or rainouts. But that would still mean the Mets would hold the record for fewest wins since they only won 40 that year. So, if we're looking to lose that record, we need a team to lose 123.

Yancy Street Gang May 04 2006 10:56 AM

Yes, I remember all those angles from the Tigers' season in, what was it? 2003? It's the most losses thing that I'm most interested in. I would have been happy if the Tigers had gone 41-121. I just looked it up: They won 5 of their last 6 and ended up 43-119. Sheesh!

Yancy Street Gang May 05 2006 09:09 AM

In yesterday's action: Pirates lose, Marlins and Royals win.

Elster88 May 05 2006 09:10 AM

Gary and Ronnie seemed to think that the Pirates will improve greatly as the season progresses. I think only KC has a shot at it this year.

Centerfield May 22 2006 11:21 AM

May 22, 2006 Kansas City: Just when it looked like things were picking up for them, the Royals have now lost 9 in a row. 10-31 (.244). Yesterday Scott Elarton told the press that he thinks they're not very good. Florida: The Marlins have dropped 7 in a row, including getting shut out by Scott Kazmir on Sunday. They are still ahead of the pace at 11-31 (.262) but remain in striking distance. Pittsburgh: The Pirates have gone a blistering 4-6 in their last 10 raising their win percentage above .300. At 14-30, they are threatening to make this a two-horse race.

sharpie May 22 2006 11:28 AM

KC may just have the worst team I've seen in many years. Who's their All Star representative? Usually on terrible teams their closer gets the shot (see Denys Baez's TB slot last year) but they've just replaced their closer with Elmer Dessens f'chrissake. Mark Grudzielanek is hitting .300 but with no power. Reggie Sanders has been hurt much of the year and Mike Sweeney for virtually the whole year. Royals might just hit 120. Marlins at least have some talent which is likely to get better, they're likely to put a good streak or two together (not this coming weekend but later).

MFS62 May 22 2006 11:33 AM

Although I'm hoping they won't get the record, KC has the best shot. In case you didn't notice yesterday's box scores, Doug Mientkiewicz is hitting third for them. 'Nuff said. Later

Centerfield May 22 2006 11:38 AM

I saw we start a movement to declare Kansas City a natural rival so we can play them 6 times a year.

SteveJRogers May 22 2006 12:48 PM

sharpie wrote: KC may just have the worst team I've seen in many years. Who's their All Star representative? Usually on terrible teams their closer gets the shot (see Denys Baez's TB slot last year) but they've just replaced their closer with Elmer Dessens f'chrissake. Mark Grudzielanek is hitting .300 but with no power. Reggie Sanders has been hurt much of the year and Mike Sweeney for virtually the whole year. Royals might just hit 120. Marlins at least have some talent which is likely to get better, they're likely to put a good streak or two together (not this coming weekend but later). A perfect reason to abolish the whole "every teams needs representation" from the MLB ASG

Gwreck May 22 2006 01:13 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: ="sharpie"]KC may just have the worst team I've seen in many years. Who's their All Star representative? Usually on terrible teams their closer gets the shot (see Denys Baez's TB slot last year) but they've just replaced their closer with Elmer Dessens f'chrissake. Mark Grudzielanek is hitting .300 but with no power. Reggie Sanders has been hurt much of the year and Mike Sweeney for virtually the whole year. Royals might just hit 120. Marlins at least have some talent which is likely to get better, they're likely to put a good streak or two together (not this coming weekend but later). A perfect reason to abolish the whole "every teams needs representation" from the MLB ASG Eh, but that's one of the fun parts. Grudzielanek will be the Royals rep. AL is short on second basemen anyway -- Iguchi and Roberts, and Grudzielanek isn't that much different than Loretta or Cano.

SteveJRogers May 22 2006 01:24 PM

Gwreck wrote: ="SteveJRogers"] ="sharpie"]KC may just have the worst team I've seen in many years. Who's their All Star representative? Usually on terrible teams their closer gets the shot (see Denys Baez's TB slot last year) but they've just replaced their closer with Elmer Dessens f'chrissake. Mark Grudzielanek is hitting .300 but with no power. Reggie Sanders has been hurt much of the year and Mike Sweeney for virtually the whole year. Royals might just hit 120. Marlins at least have some talent which is likely to get better, they're likely to put a good streak or two together (not this coming weekend but later). A perfect reason to abolish the whole "every teams needs representation" from the MLB ASG Eh, but that's one of the fun parts. Grudzielanek will be the Royals rep. AL is short on second basemen anyway -- Iguchi and Roberts, and Grudzielanek isn't that much different than Loretta or Cano. Eh, but that's one of the reasons why no one has given a damn about the AGS in several decades. Course thats also due to the fact that not only are there 30 teams now in the league, but now, unless you are one of those causal fans of just one team that can't tell Todd Helton from Todd Marinovich* with no desire to do anything except watch that team's broadcast, you have plenty of opportunites to see all the big name players in the game, something that did make the game "fun" at one point. That really was the only time you could see the other league's stars *My neighboor, a Yankee fan, complained about a Yankee-Rockie game that he didn't know any of the players on the Rockies despite the fact that Todd Helton is one of MLB's geniune stars, and Marinovich was that Raiders pot-head QB a few years back that had one of those "Tennis Parents" that wanted to make him a star QB from child birth

Edgy DC Jun 11 2006 01:06 PM

Bumpity.

Elster88 Jun 11 2006 01:22 PM

Archivers hard at work today?

GYC Jun 11 2006 02:32 PM

KC improved (by their standards) to 16-44, a .267%. Florida and Pittsburgh are almost pushing .400%, so they're done. KC is on pace for a 43-119 season.

Yancy Street Gang Jun 11 2006 03:40 PM

There's reason for hope, then. A nice five-game losing streak and their pace will look much better.

Edgy DC Jun 12 2006 01:44 PM

I doubt it will, but here's hoping that that Kansas City's triple play helps in a small way to change directions for them. In case you missed it, it went like this, according to one of the wire services: With Aubrey Huff on third and Rocco Baldelli on first, Russell Branyan flied out to David DeJesus in shallow center. Huff came home on the play and Baldelli attempted to take second on the throw home, but was thrown out by pitcher Scott Elarton , who was backing up the throw to the plate. Angel Berroa tagged out Baldelli and then threw to Mark Teahen at third base as the Royals claimed Huff had left early. Third base umpire Bob Davidson agreed with the appeal and ruled Huff out. Now, I want to look at how jive Aubrey Huff was, for a guy getting caught with his pants down. Firstly, even though the ball has been overthrown and the catcher has presumably chased it out of the ipcture, Huff, perhaps just as an exercise, comes in spikes high. Now that may be nothing; it just looks bad, but no real deal there. But then I read his comments. Now, remember how he has screwed his team. "I didn't realize that was a triple play," Huff said. "That's how unimpressive that was. It's a joke. You've got to make sure, it has to really be obvious. It cost Branyan a RBI." I mean, wow. He's the victim, not the goat here. "I didn't realize that was a triple play." That suggests you don't quite have your Devil Ray head in the game. "That's how unimpressive that was." The goal is to win, not to impress. As the D-Rays won 8-2; you could be a little more gracious with acknowledging your boner. "It's a joke." And the punchline is... Aubrey Huff! "You've got to make sure..." No, Aubrey you've got to be sure the ball is caught before you leave the base. The umps call them as they see them. "...it has to really be obvious.." What part of the rulebook is that from? "It cost Branyan a RBI." Your baserunning did, not the umpire's call. And is it really about stat-pumping?

Yancy Street Gang Jun 23 2006 09:18 AM

Royals are currently riding a four-game winning streak, and their winning percentage is way up to .310. Not looking good, at the moment, for those of us who want to see the 1962 Mets record fall.

smg58 Jun 23 2006 11:03 AM

On the other hand, the team they just swept was the Pirates...

ScarletKnight41 Jun 23 2006 11:19 AM

Something I will be sure to mention in my upcoming Pirates KTE.

MFS62 Jun 23 2006 11:49 AM

While you're concentrating on the Pirates and Royals, don't lose sight of the Braves. They are on a 10 game losing streak and so far in June, they are 2 - 18. Could they be the dark horse challenger to the record? Stay tuned, y'all. Later

Yancy Street Gang Jun 23 2006 12:00 PM

That would be fabulous, but the Braves have won 30 games. They'd have to go 10-77 to tie the 1962 Mets at 40-120. (They'd need to play at a .115 winning percentage the rest of the way.) Maybe next year!

sharpie Jun 23 2006 12:03 PM

The Braves going 10-77 (and therefore 12-96) would be one of the greatest things that's ever happened.

Centerfield Jun 23 2006 01:45 PM

With all ten of those wins coming against the Phillies.

Elster88 Jun 28 2006 09:17 AM

KC winners of 8 of 10....probably because of interleague play. Apparently this "American League" is winning some games. (25-50) Pittsburgh has lost twelve in a row to drop to 26-52. Both teams on pace to win 54.

Yancy Street Gang Jul 26 2006 08:09 PM

The record is safe this year. Every team is within at least a few games of 40 wins.

SteveJRogers Jul 26 2006 08:27 PM

Ah well... Better luck next year, probably the same suspects next year. Any Tigers in that bunch?