The Worst Team in Baseball History 2009 Version: The Washington Natinals (sic)

[RickJay]

Sometimes there's a baseball team so especially awful that you wonder just how bad they can be, and the possibility that they could lose 121 games, breaking the 1962 Mets' record, comes up. In the past we've discussed the Tigers (who came damned close) and the Royals, who always won too many games late in the year to challenge the record.

This year the candidates are the Washington Nationals, or as some of their jerseys spelled it awhile back, the Natinals. You know if the team can't spell their names right things are not going well.

Fun fact: Josh Willingham has hit nine homers but has only driven in 12 runs. How the heck do you do that?

The Nationals are 15-42, so they're on a pace to go 43-119. They'll have to step it up and lose some more to break the Mets' record. Do you think they can do it?

***


IMHO, they're not up to the task. They might not actually be as bad a team as the record suggests - they actually have some pretty decent hitters. Ryan Zimmerman can play, Adam Dunn does what he does well, and they've got other decent hitters. The pitching staff is absolutely ghastly but I think they hit too well to challenge the Mets.

But we can hope!

[Least Original User Name Ever]

It's a rough year, and it's not fun for Nationals fans.


...Are there any on the boards?

[Cliffy]

Yup.

It's really astounding, but it is, I suppose, a useful baseball education in terms of how the whole team is the sum of all its parts. Since the Nats came to D.C., the one thing they had going for them was the pen. They had no offense at all, the fielding was mostly sub-par, and the staff ace was usually somebody who might make a fourth rotation spot elsewhere, backed up with two guys in the same boat and two more who would start nowhere else in the majors. But they played respectable ball in 2005 and '06, and more than merely respectable in '07. But last year the pen started to deteriorate -- Cordero never came back from a shoulder injury, and Ayala and Rauch were traded for bats and pitching.

Now the rotation, although young, isn't bad (esp. once we dumped Cabrera), the offense is top third, the defense is, well, still pretty bad, but that's a function of having Willie Harris sit because Dunn and Hernandez are more effective at the plate. (And Catcher Jesus Flores has been hurt for a month or so.) But that pen is a fuckin' wasteland. The people left over from the fire[man] sale last year are the sometimes devastating, frequently wild Colome and Hanrahan, and the former workhorse Saul Rivera. He and Ayala used to alternate reliably in middle relief. Once Ayala left and Saul had to start pitching practically every game, he was much less effective.

So once that all cratered in the first month of the season, the team had to grab whoever was available, which mostly meant guys at the end of their career. We fired pitching coach Randy St. Clare (other than Acta, the only coach who didn't get fired last year). I was aghast when I heard it, because everybody says Saint was the smartest pitching coach in the game. But Nats pitching early this year had a very finesse approach, and the young guys they had on the mound really didn't have the control to manage it. The new guy, Steve McCatty, is apparently much less technical and more "Throw strikes, make him beat you." Which is probably a better fit for the staff we've got. It's only been a week with the new regime, but in the last couple weeks the bullpen is much less shaky, but the offense has dropped somewhat. Perhaps this is blind optimism, but from what I see, it **looks** like this is because of a structural improvement in the way the pen is running at the same time as the offense is just going through one of the cool periods you get over 162 games. I doubt very much they're going to contend for the Mets record, but they'll certainly lose 100 again. How could they not?

Oh, as for Willingham's RBI stats -- it's a bit misleading as a proxy for offensive performance generally, because he's mostly been pinch hitting for the pitcher, so he comes up well after Dunn or Dukes cleared the bases. He's going to be an every-day fielder now batting in the middle of the order, though, so that should change.

--Cliffy

[ElvisL1ves]

It's a rough year, and it's not fun for Nationals fans.


...Are there any on the boards?

There don't seem to be many in Washington.

[Theodore Striker]

Is Leatherpants Bowden still the GM there? Their current team reeks of his teams here in Cincy.

[MovieMogul]

This year the candidates are the Washington Nationals, or as some of their jerseys spelled it awhile back, the Natinals. You know if the team can't spell their names right things are not going well.Maybe they needed the extra o's for their Win column.

[fiddlesticks]

As bad at the 62 Mets were, I doubt they ever had to wear uniforms that said "Mts" or "New Yrk". :)

Was in DC on business last week and was thinking about heading to the ballpark for Randy Johnson's 300th win (and to chalk up another ballpark on the Life List) but I had a 7am flight on Thursday morning. As it was, the game on Wednesday night was rained out. Apparently they had a big walk-up crowd, so I guess I wasn't the only one with the idea that day. Poor Nats. Can't win for losing! :)

[Munch]

Fun fact: Josh Willingham has hit nine homers but has only driven in 12 runs. How the heck do you do that?

Even more fun fact: Adam Dunn has more homeruns than the Natinals have wins.

[Cliffy]

Is Leatherpants Bowden still the GM there? Their current team reeks of his teams here in Cincy.

Nope. Canned a month or so ago.

The thing is, this franchise was so neglected when it was owned by the league (last few seasons in Montreal and the first year or so in D.C.) that they really had nothing. No staff, but few prospects, either, because they all got sold off. From what I read, the Nats have one of the strongest farm systems now, but that's only a couple years old. They just don't have the depth on the 40-man roster yet.

That's not an excuse -- this team should be playing better than it is, and there's a lot of slop on defense by players who haven't been sloppy in the past, which suggests a coaching deficiency. But there's at least some reason to think they won't be this bad forever.

--Cliffy

[Stink Fish Pot]

Just heard (I think on ESPN, but no source) that the Oriole games get better TV ratings than the Nats games in Washington.

I think the city is going to lose its third team. It's not a good baseball city. No matter what the population, or the TV market. Contract them or move them.

[Cubsfan]

I live here and the Nats are rarely mentioned by people around the area. It's like they don't exist. The park is really nice though. Too bad there ain't shit to dooutside the park. You get off the metro and your two choices are to go into the park or get back on the train. There aren't even any restaurants or sports bars around. Makes it hard to justify taking the time to go all the way into town when you are lmited to just the stadium.

[RickJay]

Just heard (I think on ESPN, but no source) that the Oriole games get better TV ratings than the Nats games in Washington.

I think the city is going to lose its third team. It's not a good baseball city. No matter what the population, or the TV market. Contract them or move them.
They're still drawing better than the Marlins, Reds, A's or Pirates. Those aren't attendance powerhouses, but given how utterly hopeless the Natinals are, I think their attendance is almost miraculous. I'm shocked anyone goes to see them.

I can't help but think that if the Orioles get a good team before the Natinals do, that may indeed be the nail in Washington's coffin. But where else do you move a team to? The Yankees and Mets would put up a stink over a NY-based team. Montreal is poisoned. There are no other big un- or under-served markets. You're starting to look at some markets that are not big by MLB standards, most of which would piss off at least one existing team.

[Iolanthe]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The team has a lease with the ballpark, so it's not going anywhere for at least 30 years. See here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901562.html)

I live here too, and I see Nats hats and t-shirts everyday. That's not an indication of attendance - it's easier to buy a hat or shirt than to go to a game (time and effort,) but it's an indication of some attention.

Besides the crap done to us by MLB (i.e., rot in HELL Omar Minaya, for trading away Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips, and Cliff Lee for goddamn Bartolo Colon,) we've got to deal with the bullshit put on us by Angelos. We're stuck in a hugely unfavorable tv deal with no way to get out of it. Not one negotiated by the Lerners BTW, one that was sold with the deal.

Bowden is gone, thank the lord.

When the team was winning in the first half of 2005, the ballpark was full. Guess what? People don't come to losing teams. No, not even in Boston, NYC, or Chicago. When the Red Sox fell apart completely due to injuries in 2006, suddenly you could get tickets. (I was up there and I remember.) The team is in its 4th year here, and ownership has had it for little more than 2 years.

Sometimes I really think all baseball fans are Yankees fans. No, not that they root for the Yankees, but they have the same mindset - that the good teams will be good forever, the bad teams will be bad forever, and there are mystical forces that make it so. The "mystique and aura" bullshit, and the"curse of the bambino" bullshit. Everyone likes to cite last year's Rays. Well forget the Rays, the *Tigers* went from almost tying the Mets in 2003 to making it to the World Series in 2006. Hell, the Mets only took 7 years to go from 1962 to 1969. I'd really like for us not to take 7 years to get there, but I'm willing to have some patience while the kinks get worked out.

[Ponch8]

They still have all seven of their games left against the Cubs, so they'll probably win a few of those games by 2-0 or 2-1 scores, thus putting them over the 42 wins required to avoid 120 losses. The Cubs would make some single-A pitchers look like Cy Young this year. :(

By the way, the 1962 Mets only have the modern-era record for losses. The all-time record is held by the 1899 Cleveland Spiders in the last year of their existence (a 20-134 record).

[Sternvogel]

By the way, the 1962 Mets only have the modern-era record for losses. The all-time record is held by the 1899 Cleveland Spiders in the last year of their existence (a 20-134 record).

Of course, that was partly a result of the Spiders essentially serving as a farm club of the St. Louis Perfectos. As this article (http://www.wcnet.org/~dlfleitz/cleve.htm) explains:

The final blow to Cleveland baseball came early in 1899. Frank Robison, Cleveland owner, bought the St. Louis Browns at a sheriff's auction and decided that a good team would draw better in St. Louis than in Cleveland. He then transferred all of Cleveland's stars to the Browns, which he arrogantly renamed the Perfectos. Pitching great Cy Young, batting champion Jesse Burkett, and all the other Spiders stars were replaced by minor-leaguers and semi-pros. Other teams followed Robison's lead; the Brooklyn Dodgers bought the Baltimore Orioles, absorbed their best players, and renamed themselves the Superbas. Four different teams held stock in the New York Giants. Ownership of major-league teams represented a jumble of conflicting allegiances which resulted in the weaker teams serving as farm teams for the stronger ones.

Robison put his brother Stanley in charge of the Cleveland branch of his baseball business, and Stanley angered the Spiders fans by announcing his intention to "operate the team as a sideshow." Perhaps the only good player left on the team was Lave Cross, who played third base and managed the team. On Opening Day, the Spiders drew fewer than 500 fans for a doubleheader. They lost both games, and the disaster was on.

After the first 38 games the Spiders had 30 losses, and Manager Cross was relieved of command and exiled to St. Louis. This would be the high point of the season, because the Spiders won only 12 of their remaining 116 games. After this the Spiders transferred all their home games to opponents' cities, and played no more in Cleveland.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

They're still drawing better than the Marlins, Reds, A's or Pirates. Those aren't attendance powerhouses, but given how utterly hopeless the Natinals are, I think their attendance is almost miraculous. I'm shocked anyone goes to see them.

I can't help but think that if the Orioles get a good team before the Natinals do, that may indeed be the nail in Washington's coffin. But where else do you move a team to? The Yankees and Mets would put up a stink over a NY-based team. Montreal is poisoned. There are no other big un- or under-served markets. You're starting to look at some markets that are not big by MLB standards, most of which would piss off at least one existing team.

Marlins, A's and Pirates, yes, but on average, not outdrawing the Reds.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

[John DiFool]

They aren't nearly as bad as their record indicates. One website (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php) which adjusts for such things, indicates that they are really a ~.434 team playing at a .262 clip-a whopping ten game difference. .434 of course (70-92 for a full season) isn't great, but they are certainly not the worst team ever (c.f. expansion Mets in 1962, who went 40-120).

[Cliffy]

I think that's true, John, but it's rather slim comfort that this team should be playing much better than it's actually playing.

--Cliffy

[Duke]

A massive hijack, and I wouldn't even be bothering with it if I wasn't running boring stats reports now, but here goes:

I've never been impressed by the Pythagorean Theorem of baseball. The problem is that in football or basketball or hockey or other sports where the Pythagorean Theorem is applied, both teams play the same amount of time. Both football teams get about an equal number of possessions, both hockey teams get the same amount of ice time, etc.

But that's not true in baseball. When the home team wins before the bottom of the ninth (which happens >50% of the time), the winning team gets only 8 innings, while the losing team gets 9. If the bottom of the ninth was played out, the average margin of victory would be considerably wider than it is. And when there's a walk-off non-HR hit, that also artificially cuts down the margin of victory, because only enough runs are counted to allow the home team to pull ahead.

What that all means is that in baseball, the margin of victory is artificially low. That 11-5 game the Natinals lost on the road could have been 13-5 or worse if the home team had gotten a shot at the ninth. So if the bottom of the ninth had been played out, their Pythagorean record would have been somewhat worse, and probably a little closer to their actual record. By the same token, teams that are winning games at home have an artificially worse margin of victory and therefore a poorer Pythagorean record than their strength would indicate. And when you look at the Pythagorean records, that's what you see. Teams that are strong at home generally have worse Pythagorean records than their actual record; teams that are weak on the road generally have better Pythagorean records than their actual record.

I'm not saying that the Pythagorean record is useless, just that it seems there's an essential flaw there.

[Munch]

I'm not saying that the Pythagorean record is useless, just that it seems there's an essential flaw there.

How many games a year are there that end with only 51 outs? I really can't imagine that it's going to have a significant impact. Games that go into extra innings where the home team scores early in the inning aren't going to matter much at all, because the MOV is so slim.

[RickJay]

But that's not true in baseball. When the home team wins before the bottom of the ninth (which happens >50% of the time), the winning team gets only 8 innings, while the losing team gets 9. If the bottom of the ninth was played out, the average margin of victory would be considerably wider than it is. And when there's a walk-off non-HR hit, that also artificially cuts down the margin of victory, because only enough runs are counted to allow the home team to pull ahead.
Over the course of a large number of games that stuff generally evens out. It just doesn't account for very many runs. The eight-innings-for-the-home-team effect only matters if a team has way more home wins than away wins and even then it's not that many innings. 20 innings a year - 20 wins would be an enormous difference in home vs. road wins - would account for, on average, nine runs.

And not very many games are won by walk-off hits... and games that do partially make up for the eight inning effect.

Pythagorean projections are generally very accurate and teams that over- or under-perform them tend to veer back towards their expected record with remarkable predictability.

[ElvisL1ves]

One website which adjusts for such things, indicates that they are really a ~.434 team playing at a .262 clip-a whopping ten game difference. Alternatively, as Bill Parcells says, "You are what your record says you are."

[Duke]

Over the course of a large number of games that stuff generally evens out. It just doesn't account for very many runs. The eight-innings-for-the-home-team effect only matters if a team has way more home wins than away wins and even then it's not that many innings. 20 innings a year - 20 wins would be an enormous difference in home vs. road wins - would account for, on average, nine runs.

Actually, it's home wins, period, that matter. Barring extra innings, losing team plays nine innings whether it's home or away, and a winning team plays either eight or nine. In other words, a team that loses more games is going to play more innings, whether they have a significant difference between home and away wins or not.

I hate to crunch more numbers after I've been doing it all day, but now I'm curious. Let's take Average Team at 81-81, with 41 wins at home and 40 away, and a Natinals 162-game projection at 42.5-119.5, with a home/away split of 25.5 wins at home and 17 away. And let's say for ease of calculation that teams that win at home always play eight innings, and there are no extra-inning games.

Average Team therefore plays 328 innings in home wins, 360 in home losses, 360 in away wins, 369 in away losses: 1,417 innings in total. The Natinals would play 204 innings in home wins, 499.5 in home losses, 153 in away wins, and 576 in away losses: 1,432.5 in total. So, that's a difference of about 15 innings. Agreed, not that much of a swing.

But that's only half of the total. See, the Natinals are playing more innings, and therefore have more chances to score. The other half of the equation is that they are facing fewer innings, and therefore the other team has fewer chances to score against them. Running the numbers again, it looks like the Natinals face another 15 fewer innings.

Put it all together and...wait, I did all that and there's a change of only 30 innings per year? Damn. :( Let's see, league average of runs per game is running at 4.65 per game, average length of game this year is 8.91 innings per game (both from this Baseball Reference page (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2009.shtml)), so that gives us a swing of...15.64 runs per year. Applying that to the portion of the season the Natinals have so far played this year (62/162), that's about 6 runs, which gives them a new Pythagenport winning percentage of...let's see, X = .45 + 1.5 * log10 ((rs+ra)/g), winning percentage then equal to (rs^x)/(rs^x + ra^x)... .430, as opposed to .434. That's one less win over the course of a year.

And now, time to sleep, knowing I was wrong, but at least knowing why.

[RickJay]

Having said all that, the Natinals still have a chance at antiglory. Their REAL record is brutal, and it's gotten a little worse since this thread started. They've gone 1-4 since my OP, making them now 16-46, so are on a pace for 120 losses! (42-120, not actually as bad as the 40-120 Mets of 1962, but 120 losses is 120 losses.)

I'm optimistic they can play worse and make a run at it.