04/23/24
September 18, 2003
14 Tiger Scenarios: ESPN.com's Jim Baker looked at 14 possible outcomes for the Detroit Tigers' last 14 games, basing each possible outcome on a past 14-game NFL season, from the 14-0 1972 Miami Dolphins to the 0-14 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers. [more inside]
posted by kirkaracha to baseball at 06:24 PM - 7 comments
I am a Mets fan and have been all my life. I confess, I've taken a perverse pleasure in the fact that the Mets had the worst record in baseball history, in part because of thir World Series win a couple of years later. You know, worst to first in under a decade. That being said, I took the advice of a fellow Sportsfilter poster and watched a Tigers' game the other day and, you know what? I have to admit that the Tigers deserve to break the Mets' record. I hope, for their sake, that they have a World Series win by the end of the decade, but I doubt it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 06:32 AM on September 20, 2003
To be specific, of course, by "a couple of years later," I, in fact, mean "seven years later."
posted by Joey Michaels at 06:35 AM on September 20, 2003
Almost there: 120 1962 Mets (40-120) 117 1916 Athletics (36-117), 2003 Tigers (38-117 so far) 115 1935 Braves (38-115) 113 1904 Senators (38-113) 112 1952 Pirates (42-112), 1965 Mets (50-112)
posted by kirkaracha at 09:42 PM on September 21, 2003
Other than the Mets, none of these all time losers played a 162 game season. Shouldn't that be taken into account?
posted by billsaysthis at 12:55 PM on September 22, 2003
Well, that's basically the same as saying Babe Ruth's hitting 60 home runs in a 145-game season is better/more impressive/whatever than Roger Maris's hitting 61 in a 162-game season. Baseball doesn't seem to take the number of games in a season into account when it keeps track of season-based records. If you convert the records to percentages, it breaks down like this: .235 1916 Athletics .248 1935 Braves .245 2003 Tigers .250 1962 Mets .252 1904 Senators
posted by kirkaracha at 05:46 PM on September 22, 2003
Baseball doesn't seem to take the number of games in a season into account Another reason to love the game... Though if the Tigers lose out, seems like they will essentially tie the 1916 A's on apercentage basis anyway.
posted by billsaysthis at 08:31 PM on September 22, 2003
(He looks at NFL seasons because there's a crossover between football and baseball this time of year.) The Tigers have dropped three games since he wrote this column (and they're down by three in the first inning of today's game), so the best they can do is 11-3 over the final 14 games. Here's how the Tigers stack up against the losingest baseball teams ever: 120 1962 Mets (40-120) 117 1916 Athletics (36-117) 115 1935 Braves (38-115) 113 1904 Senators (38-113), 2003 Tigers (38-113 so far) 112 1952 Pirates (42-112), 1965 Mets (50-112)