2023 A's: Worst MLB Team Ever?

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
I didn't want to start this thread before NY finished their series with them, but OAK is on pace to have by far the worst run differential in the post-1900 history of MLB. This is before today's 11-3 loss, worst run differentials ever through 37 games:

 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
The 1932 Red Sox (sorry) have the worst run differential for a full season post-1900 at -349. The A's are at -142 through 38 games, which puts them on pace for -605 (!!!!!!).
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,371
The 88 Orioles were the first team that came to mind when I saw your post. To see that the A's are -25 runs worse than them at this stage is incredible.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
I don't get what they're doing at all... I know that the owners are trying to get the team ran out of Oakland but it should incur some penalties or something. I do think there needs to be a spending limit on player personnel just as much as there should be a floor (not covered by the tax revenue sharing the other teams bring in).
It's awful.. I have always liked the A's but this is just stupid.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,435
They are in a division with decent teams and will presumably sell off their best relievers at the deadline, so I think they're very likely to wind up the worst of all time.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,067
Alamogordo
I'd like to feel bad for them, but they still have a better offense than Cleveland.
Cleveland at least has players they can dream on. And some players underperforming who will hopefully return to career norms.

I feel bad for Oakland fans. What Fisher has done should really be punished by the league somehow, but there really doesn't seem like an avenue to that.

I hope they go to Vegas and fail miserably. Rich people with ill intentions suck so bad.
 

Homar

New Member
Aug 9, 2010
94
The 1899 Cleveland Spiders were in the single "big league" the National League of 12 teams. Their owners also owned another NL team, an arrangement called syndicate ownership. The owners traded all the good Spiders to themselves, and left the rotting carcass behind. After June or so, they played no home games because they made more from the visitors share of the gate than they could from the home share of the few dozen Clevelanders stupid enough to part with $.50 for a Spider's ticket. They weren't trying. And yet the A's may match them. The surprise here is that anyone in Oakland buys a seat. They aren't trying. Honestly, I don't see that the behavior of current ownership is much better than the 1919 Black Sox, who famously weren't trying, either. I suppose the modern fan knows that the A's aren't making an effort, while the Black Sox kept their behavior a mystery. Different. But not all that much better.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
I don't get what they're doing at all... I know that the owners are trying to get the team ran out of Oakland but it should incur some penalties or something. I do think there needs to be a spending limit on player personnel just as much as there should be a floor (not covered by the tax revenue sharing the other teams bring in).
It's awful.. I have always liked the A's but this is just stupid.
The death of Vida Blue kind of highlights this point. Whatever one thinks about Charlie Finley attempting to sell off players - which MLB decided was too destructive to the game to allow - this is way worse. And yet, nothing.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,633
Ground Zero
There should be a pro/rel system where the bottom tier is still MLB and plays the same MLB schedule mixed in with the top tier, but the bottom tier teams are playing for advancement to the top tier, not to make the playoffs/World Series. So maybe the bottom tier is 6 teams, 3 from each league and each year the best bottom team in each league goes up while there is some sort of relegation playoff for the worst few teams in the top tier and the loser goes down. Almost every team would have something to play for all season and there would be a longer term penalty for tanking because you could end up getting stuck in the bottom tier even when you start trying again.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346
There should be a pro/rel system where the bottom tier is still MLB and plays the same MLB schedule mixed in with the top tier, but the bottom tier teams are playing for advancement to the top tier, not to make the playoffs/World Series. So maybe the bottom tier is 6 teams, 3 from each league and each year the best bottom team in each league goes up while there is some sort of relegation playoff for the worst few teams in the top tier and the loser goes down. Almost every team would have something to play for all season and there would be a longer term penalty for tanking because you could end up getting stuck in the bottom tier even when you start trying again.
Not that it would ever happen, but I have a much simpler solution: the team with the worst record in each league loses in revenue sharing 50% of the difference between team payroll and the MLB median payroll. If an owner isn't going to remotely try to compete, they don't deserve an equal slice of revenue sharing money from the real teams.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,922
They have a 7.31 team era!

Wonder who their all star will be. Brent Rooker? I’ve never heard of him but he’s put up 1.5 bWAR and a 1084 OPS so far.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,435
Not that it would ever happen, but I have a much simpler solution: the team with the worst record in each league loses in revenue sharing 50% of the difference between team payroll and the MLB median payroll. If an owner isn't going to remotely try to compete, they don't deserve an equal slice of revenue sharing money from the real teams.
FWIW, the A's did lose their rev share $ for a while.

The A’s were phased out of revenue sharing in the 2016 CBA; that year, they received more than $30 million. From there, the revenue share was reduced by 25 percent each year until 2020, when the team stopped receiving the funds altogether
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.athleticsnation.com/platform/amp/2022/3/11/22971508/elephant-rumblings-oakland-as-revenue-sharing-collective-bargaining-agreement

The new CBA has allowed them to start getting rev share $ again, with an important caveat:

In 2022, the A's received 25% of a full share or, according to Forbes, $11 million. The second year, they receive 50%. According to the collective bargaining agreement, the A's would receive 75% and 100% in ensuing years, but only if they secure a ballpark deal by Jan. 15, 2024.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
The 1899 Cleveland Spiders were in the single "big league" the National League of 12 teams. Their owners also owned another NL team, an arrangement called syndicate ownership. The owners traded all the good Spiders to themselves, and left the rotting carcass behind. After June or so, they played no home games because they made more from the visitors share of the gate than they could from the home share of the few dozen Clevelanders stupid enough to part with $.50 for a Spider's ticket. They weren't trying. And yet the A's may match them. The surprise here is that anyone in Oakland buys a seat. They aren't trying. Honestly, I don't see that the behavior of current ownership is much better than the 1919 Black Sox, who famously weren't trying, either. I suppose the modern fan knows that the A's aren't making an effort, while the Black Sox kept their behavior a mystery. Different. But not all that much better.
This is great stuff until the end, you are comparing possibly the worst team in 120 years to a very talented team that made the WS, OAK is management not trying and selling anyone they can for lint-covered quarters, CHW was players taking presumably much-needed money to lose the WS. It's a terrible comparison, but if you cut it after 'they aren't trying', fantastic post.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,496
The 1899 Cleveland Spiders were in the single "big league" the National League of 12 teams. Their owners also owned another NL team, an arrangement called syndicate ownership. The owners traded all the good Spiders to themselves, and left the rotting carcass behind. After June or so, they played no home games because they made more from the visitors share of the gate than they could from the home share of the few dozen Clevelanders stupid enough to part with $.50 for a Spider's ticket. They weren't trying. And yet the A's may match them. The surprise here is that anyone in Oakland buys a seat. They aren't trying. Honestly, I don't see that the behavior of current ownership is much better than the 1919 Black Sox, who famously weren't trying, either. I suppose the modern fan knows that the A's aren't making an effort, while the Black Sox kept their behavior a mystery. Different. But not all that much better.
The Robison brothers who ran the Cleveland Spiders into the ground in 1899 had built League Park eight years earlier. In an era when most parks were built downtown, they built their park three miles east of the city's center. That's because they were in the streetcar business and League Park was located at the last stop on their downtown line. They were getting as much money out of the fans as they could before they even reached the ticket booth.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,163
They have a 7.31 team era!

Wonder who their all star will be. Brent Rooker? I’ve never heard of him but he’s put up 1.5 bWAR and a 1084 OPS so far.
I followed the ineptitude of the 1996 Tigers, ended up 53-109. They were flirting with that 7+ ERA for quite a while, ended up at 6.38. The 2003 Tigers were, of course, worse w/43 wins. Ended up -337 run differential.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
Didn't people say the same thing last year about the Reds?
They started off 3-22 but never had a terrible run differential and always had at least some talent. OAK has very little talent and are playing that way.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Currently on pace for a 34-128 season. It must drive the likes of John Henry wild to think of all the profit sharing money being wasted on this sorry excuse for an MLB team. Mind you that probably pales when he thinks of the money given to Tampa.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
The 1932 Red Sox (sorry) have the worst run differential for a full season post-1900 at -349. The A's are at -142 through 38 games, which puts them on pace for -605 (!!!!!!).
-177 through 49 games, on pace for -585.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
Currently on pace for a 34-128 season. It must drive the likes of John Henry wild to think of all the profit sharing money being wasted on this sorry excuse for an MLB team. Mind you that probably pales when he thinks of the money given to Tampa.
I don't think that they're getting much in terms of revenue sharing, are they? I don't quite remember the details but I'm pretty sure after three years in a row of revenue sharing, you don't get it anymore or it slides backwards. And I'm sure Henry and the other owners don't care very much, the amount that they pay for RS is a rounding error.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,435
I don't think that they're getting much in terms of revenue sharing, are they? I don't quite remember the details but I'm pretty sure after three years in a row of revenue sharing, you don't get it anymore or it slides backwards. And I'm sure Henry and the other owners don't care very much, the amount that they pay for RS is a rounding error.
Yep - see post #20 above. They only get a full rev share next year IF they have a ballpark deal done.

Separately, I've got to think they move to the AAA Vegas stadium next year. I can't imagine, for both ownership and players, it would be any worse than playing in Oakland at this point.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
10-45, run differential of -199.

Projects to:

29-133, run differential of -586.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
12-50, run differential of -213.

Projects to:

32-130, run differential of -557.

Trending up a bit with run differential, only -14 in the last 7 games, but again the post-1900 record is just -349 so a long way to go.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
A's win 11-2 over PIT, that one big win drops their projected run differential from -557 to -525.
 

Jason Bae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2021
624
NJ
A's have won 3 in a row now, their longest winning streak of the season and their third winning streak in 2023. Run differential is at -197 after sitting at -213 prior to the streak.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
Now 4 in a row, just 3 games behind KC.

16-50, run differential of -196.

Projects to:

39-123, run differential of -481.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,878
San Andreas Fault
All the other bottom dwellers' $$&@¥£€s are beginning to pucker. Do you really want to play these guys with the possibility of getting completely embarrassed? Well, you have to: A's at Sox 7/7, 8 and 9.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
OAK wins 1-0 over DET in 10:

24-63, run differential of -236.

Projects to:

45-117, run differential of -439.

Trending up, but again the post-1900 record is just -349 so a long way to go.