Talk:List of worst Major League Baseball season win–loss records

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Baseball Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Excuse me, but this article sems a little pointless and non-notable. Although well-written, I doubt Wikipedia honestly needs a list of worst baseball teams. 63.3.0.1 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Notability: "Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'." 76.197.210.146 18:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article would have more stature if there were a companion article called

List of best MLB season records, which they ain't. Also, the premise about the 1899 Cleveland club is false, because they played a 154-game schedule that year. The list could start with 1892, when the NL expanded to 12 teams and 154 games. Or it could simply be done better. Baseball Bugs 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Come on - the Mariners of 2010 are not there yet - vote to remove yet, or at least asterisk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.88.132 (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the 1899 info about the Orioles and the Dodgers, because it has to do with the historical perspective on this situation. It wasn't just the Cardinals who had owners who also owned another team and stripped its star players. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate Orioles are on pace in 2010 to make #10 on this list. Sad, sad days for Baltimore fans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.209.58 (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think we need to change the section header. Records can mean one of two things: 1) What were the teams records or 2) that these teams listed hold some sort of record for finishing where they did. It appears to me that this is a list of teams with at least 100 losses. If that is the case, then the header for this section needs to be changed to reflect that.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change because many of these "records" are not "records"... since the word record can be used to indicate the win-losses of a team OR a special feat (a record) I felt the section was ambiguous and needed changing. If you disagree, lets discuss. But about a week an no comments, I take it as a sign that people don't really care.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 Their Longest losing streak was 7 games. 2 Other teams lost more than 106 games 3 They have the same record as the 2002 brewers and the 2005 Royals. 4 A worst record in baseball would not win no more then 50 games. 5 In a 162 game season a worst record would lose more then 110 games.

You can't put an identical record that were finished by other teams. (See reason 3) If the Astros lost more then 110 games that's ok. But they finished 106 loses and that dose not count as a worst record. So QUIT PUTTING THE 2011 HOUSTON ASTROS ON THE LIST. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.169.19 (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not OK. First, you should stop yelling, as it's not conducive to a cooperative environment and formation of

consensus. Second, the criterion is not simply "worst seasons", meaning "use your judgment as to what constitutes a worst season". The criterion for inclusion is "seasons with 100 or more losses". Since the Astros lost 106 games in 2011, this qualifies. When you say "Other teams lost more than 106 games", are you talking about in MLB history? If so, that's true, and that's what this article is about. But no other team in 2011 lost more than 100 games, much less more than Houston's 106. However, all other 100+ loss seasons should also be included. As I am aware, this is a lot more teams than are currently displayed here. If in your third point, you are trying to say, "If the 02 Brewers and the 05 Royals aren't here, then neither should the Astros be", what really should be done is adding the missing teams, not just deleting this one. Perhaps the amount of losses criterion needs to be changed, as perhaps you alluded to above ("If the Astros lost more then 110 games that's ok."). This is the discussion we should be having, not "QUIT PUTTING THE 2011 HOUSTON ASTROS ON THE LIST." Continuing the discussion here without doing any reverting would be the advisable course of action for all parties. — KV5 • Talk • 18:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed. The fact that other teams are not listed is not justification not to include the Astros, but to add the missing teams. If the criteria needs to be changed, then so be it... but I don't really see that happening. 100 games seems to be the magical number that gets all the hype by the media because 100 is one of those numbers that has special symbolic value in our culture.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you even put the 2011 Houston Astros in the first place? That's like if you were to put the 2001 Oakland A's or the 1961 New York Yankees in the MLB best win-loss record. They didn't even get 8 straight loses. They reached 56 wins. 100 or more losses means win no more then 50 games. In other words in a 140 game season a bad record would be like this: 40-100. I understand that in 2011 season no one else got 100 losses. But that dose not mean you should put the 2011 Houston Astros On the list. Here's what I'm going to do. I going to replace it with the 2005 Kansas City Royals. Because 1 of their 19 game losing streak. 2 No one else lost 100 games that season. 3 They were the earliest to reach 100 loses. will that be ok? --75.118.217.182 (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100 or more losses and 50 or more wins are not mutually exclusive in a 162-game season. Your rationale is entirely flawed. I see that you replaced one with the other, which is ok but still wrong, as ALL 100-plus loss seasons should be included if that is the criterion being used. — KV5 • Talk • 12:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Astros back, do NOT remove it again, unless you have a VALID reason to do so. --

talk | contribs) 06:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Something's out of whack here. The other entries have a winning percentage of .308 or worse. The 2011 'Stros are at .346. I think something has gotten lost from the original concept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that

List of best Major League Baseball season won-loss records has only those with .700 percentage and higher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, here's the problem: Over a year ago, someone removed the .300 stipulation in order to make specific mention of the D-Backs, without bothering to add other teams with over 100 losses:[1] It was further complicated a few months ago by someone altering the section heading.[2] There have been something on the order of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY teams with over 100 losses. That's not the point of the list. It's to list the lowest percentages with some reasonable cutoff point. Hence the .700 / .300 thing. I intend to add back that stipulation, and hopefully that will fix things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That will work too. — KV5 • Talk • 11:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with changing it as long as there is a specific criteria and a specific reason for the criteria. 100 losses or .300 record or worse work for me. But we need to change the header to reflect what the criteria is.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added a sentence explaining the criteria of 0.300 or worse season. Also changed title of "record" to "Season Record" per the discussion (or lack thereof) above.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somplace. :) I changed the heading to "Season records", both here and on the corresponding "Best" page. I'll see what I can do about making the pages more uniform. Another option would be to merge the pages, as they are related concepts. Although that might be too much info for one article, and the current "see also" might be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is very misleading. It implies that all the mentioned franchises were terrible in between their disastrous seasons and their moves to new cities. That the moves were the reason the franchises turned it around. The Senators won the WS in 24 and back-to-back pennants. The Philadelphia A's won back-to-back WS in 29 and 30. The Browns won the pennant in 44. All of this happened after the poor seasons listed. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being nearly three months with no discussion, the consensus seems to be that nobody cares. I will remove the section now. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the 1890 Pittsburgh Pirates on the list if they didn't play 140 games? --24.18.30.66 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501205105/http://www.wcnet.org/~dlfleitz/cleve.htm to http://www.wcnet.org/~dlfleitz/cleve.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927184817/http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/excerpts/baseball_dynasties5.stm to http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/excerpts/baseball_dynasties5.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]