Worst MLB Franchise of All Time

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
Really glad to see late movement towards San Diego. I suspected they were the worst of all time when I asked the question--not only for lack of quality, but just complete nonentitiness (if that's a word). No character. Never in the hunt. Fucking boring. San Diego is like a baseball lobotomy. Say what you want about Cleveland, Philly, CHI (although the arguments for the White Sox have been compelling to me, too), but at least they all have a story. SanDiego is just a bad, bad franchise.
 
Last edited:

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
If we're counting the St Louis Browns and omitting them as the Baltimore Orioles (and, ironically in the context of this thread, the Milwaukee Brewers), you have to consider the Seattle Pilots independent of their later existence as the second incarnation of the Milwaukee Brewers.

(And the Brewers get credit, I guess, for modest success as a MLB team in a MiLB market)

The ONLY good thing to have come from the Pilots is "Ball Four"...
I think that we probably should count a franchise's entire history, it might make this exercise a little different:

1. Does the amount of success of the 90s/00s Braves balance the scales for the amount of crappy baseball that Boston National League fans had to watch from the 1880s through 1953?
2. The Athletics have four World Championships in their Oakland years. How does that make up for some really bad Philly and Kansas City A's teams?
3. You touched a bit on the Orioles/Browns lineage. The Browns only went to one World Series in their entire tenure in St. Louis. Should the Orioles (who were pretty great until Angelos took the reigns) pay for those mistakes?
4. And until Jackie came around, the Dodgers were the quintessential Bums. Los Angeles has certainly shined the name up a bit, but overall how does the franchise fare?

It's a bit more thinking rather than saying that the Seattle Pilots sucked (which they did, but it was one year) or that the Browns were terrible (which they were) to take the entirety of a franchise and see how it tracks.
 

SeanBerry

Knows about the CBA.
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,599
Section 519
I think the answer is pretty easy. It's the Phillies.

The Philadelphia/KC/Oakland A's had many bad years but you did mention the 4 Oakland titles. They also won 5 in Philadelphia. This is a franchise that should be argued for one of the better ones, not one of the worst.

The Braves are a fair point. But they've been so good over the past 60+ years since leaving Boston (playing .520 ball which is outstanding over that long a period of time), I can't rightfully consider them.

The Phillies though? Awful, awful franchise. They've lost 1,100 more than they have won. From 1883-1979, they didn't win a single championship and only went to 2 WS winning a total of one game.

Seasons they've lost 99 games: 1904,1921,1923,1927,1928,1930,1936,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1945,1961,1969,2015
Seasons they've won 99 games: 1976,1977,2011
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
The A's are a very good franchise but they seem to be really good in bunches before bottoming out completely.

They were really horrible from 1931-ish until they left for KC. Then when they were in KC they were a glorified Yankee farm team. They were obviously very good in the early 70s, sucked in the late 70s wee good for one or two years of Billyball, sucked again and were good at the end of the 80s. They floundered until Beane came around and it's been up and down since.

That's a prolonged stretch of suck with a few good to great years thrown in.

They aren't the Browns or the Boston Braves, but fromPhilly to KC to Oakland the only green the A's are interested in is saving money.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
The A's have had the same problem their entire history, which is that they win but can't really make enough money to sustain it, so they have to tear it down. Even the Bash Brothers A's. Wally Haas was soaking up a lot of losses, so when he died in 1994 or 1995 (admittedly this was already past their window of success) and his kids sold the team, it got torn down.

It's funny how that happens to some teams. The Natspos are kind of the same way, this current Nats team looks to be a risk to do less with more just like the early 80s Expos.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
I always thought it was the Phillies. Looking at just the 8 original NL franchises, in 132 seasons, they've won the fewest pennants (7), they've the worst winning % of .472, are the only original NL team with a losing record, and would need a 1,123 game winning streak to get to .500.

and this thread needs a poll.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Plus they played in the Vet for over 30 years, which has to be up there for worst modern stadiums ever, even amongst the cookie cutter stadiums of the era.
 

SoxFanInCali

has the rich, deep voice of a god
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2005
15,568
California. Duh.
The Padres retired Steve Garvey's number (the Dodgers haven't). They've never won the World Series and have only been competitive on rare occasions. Their uniform history has no consistency and has produced some of the ugliest ones in history. Their stadium is taken over by rival fans whenever they play 2 of their 4 division rivals (Dodgers and Giants). Even their park, while nice, looks to me like they just threw together the features of 3 or 4 other parks. Their history is long enough now that I think they can be thrown in this discussion.

Dishonorable mention to the A's, who have had success at times but have spent nearly all of their history as the "2nd team" in their home markets in Philly and the Bay Area.
 

sheamonu

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2004
1,342
Dublin, Ireland
All of these suggestions have merit but why no love (hate) for the Milwaukee Brewers? This is a team that was the Seattle Pilots for a year, have never won a World Series, had their owner (a used car salesman) become the Commissioner and still couldn't get to or win a championship, this despite being allowed to move their entire franchise to another league in order to boost their bottom line and play the Cubs and Pirates more often. The best team Milwaukee ever had came from Boston - and it wasn't the Brew Crew. (Good nickname though...)
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,230
No mention of the Mets thus far? They've got two World Series titles, and 1969 was obviously a tremendous high for them, but their other championship was a gift from John McNamara. Most of their other post season appearances have ended in ignominy. And other than those rare, once in a decade or so post seasons, its been a ton of losing (the 1962 team was the worst of all time, wasn't it?), bad ownership, crappy stadiums, mediocre players. They've mostly existed in the shadow of the mighty Yankees and as a source of nostalgia around the much better Giants/Dodgers franchises (hell, their current owner seems to care more about the Dodgers of the 1950s than anything in Mets history). They ran the only player they've had in their entire history worthy of having his number retired thus far (Seaver) out of town over a contract dispute. Most of their other iconic players are monuments to failed potential, led by Gooden, Strawberry, or had their best seasons elsewhere (Piazza, Hernandez, Carter). Their career leader in games played is Ed Kranepool!

They've had a few more highs than the Padres or Cubs or whomever, but they've been pretty pathetic most of their history.
 
Last edited:

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
I think some of these suggestions are searching too hard, or at least are purely looking at long-term on-field success, which doesn't make sense to me. I loved being a Red Sox fan because it was such an integral part of being a Bostonian and a New Englander even when we weren't winning. Folks in Philadelphia feel the same way about the Eagles despite similar on-field issues.

In my opinion, to be the worst franchise in MLB you need to both infuriate and insult your fanbase; you need to be comically inept and aggressively awful in basically every way; and most of all you need your city to be relatively ashamed to host you.

The Mets? They're the plucky underdogs with a few thrilling championship runs, one of the best teams of all-time (uggghhhh '86 Mets), and an eclectic fanbase that includes everyone from Jewish comedians (Seinfeld, Stewart, Maher) to any New Yorker sensible enough to hate the Yankees and eager to bemoan their struggles over coffee and a Post.

The Cubs? Please. They're practically us pre-2004, with a gorgeous antique stadium with baseball history seeping out of its bones and a lovingly terrible team. That fanbase loves that team against all on-field reason: even in down years their games are well attended and their fans are united in a hipster brotherhood of sadness. From Bill Murray to Ferris Bueller, being a Cubs fan is cool.

No, no, to be the worst I agree with those who have nominated truly bad franchises. Personally I think it's between the Phillies and the Rays, although I like the argument for the Padres (although I would probably say the Padres are the most irrelevant team, not necessarily the worst).

Everything about the Rays is just awful. Their name and uniforms are straight out of a Back to the Future sequel. Their stadium feels like it was built in an abandoned warehouse they didn't have time or interest to renovate. But they're so new, and for the past few years they've been solid on the field, so it's hard to calibrate.

The Phillies are remarkable in their own way. From 1883 to 1975 they made the playoffs twice, and won 1 game. But to be fair, they had a serious run in the late 70s/early 80s, and again in the late 00s. Also great call on the stadiums: the Vet was an open air toilet and Connie Mack stadium was apparently no better. (edit: and not to go V&N, but their racial history from the 40s through the 70s was as ugly as any franchise in professional sports, from Ben Chapman to Curt Flood creating the free agent system because he refused to play for the Phillies and their fans).

Good barroom debate.
 
Last edited:

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The A's are a very good franchise but they seem to be really good in bunches before bottoming out completely.

They were really horrible from 1931-ish until they left for KC. Then when they were in KC they were a glorified Yankee farm team. They were obviously very good in the early 70s, sucked in the late 70s wee good for one or two years of Billyball, sucked again and were good at the end of the 80s. They floundered until Beane came around and it's been up and down since.

That's a prolonged stretch of suck with a few good to great years thrown in.
There's also the dead-ball era, in which the A's were dominant early on, winning six out of the first fourteen AL pennants and finishing second in three more seasons. Then they lost a bunch of their best players, promptly occupied the cellar for most of the next ten years, and only clawed their way back to respectability in the mid-1920s with the emergence of Grove, Cochrane, Simmons and Max Bishop, joined by Foxx a few years later. They were a power again for several years, then ditched their superstars again in the mid-30s, and weren't a first-division team again until 1969.

Because the A's have so often followed that build-a-power/blow-it-up pattern, they have by far the most pennants (15) and WS titles (9) of any franchise with an overall negative W-L record. And they rank 8th out of 30 in Hall of Fame players, with more than the Red Sox, Reds, or Tigers, among others. Definitely not a candidate for worst franchise ever. Maybe most trick-or-treat franchise ever?

The Phillies are a good answer to this question because they have lost the most games of any franchise, and that seems like a good seat-of-the-pants suck index. However, my gut agrees with SoxFanInCali that it's the Padres. Awful W/L record, and they're just....dull. Dull uniforms, dull pitcher's park, dull history...I mean, look at their retired uniform numbers. You have one legitimate HoFer who stayed with the franchise his whole career, one dominant but colorless closer, two guys best known for their exploits for other teams, and...wait for it....the one and only Randy Jones.

I rest my case.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
Really glad to see late movement towards San Diego. I suspected they were the worst of all time when I asked the question--not only for lack of quality, but just complete nonentitiness (if that's a word). No character. Never in the hunt. Fucking boring. San Diego is like a baseball lobotomy. Say what you want about Cleveland, Philly, CHI (although the arguments for the White Sox have been compelling to me, too), but at least they all have a story. SanDiego is just a bad, bad franchise.
Hearing the arguments for San Diego moved them toward the top of the list for me too, but the more I think about the White Sox I keep finding reasons to put em back up top. Black Sox scandal. Charles Comiskey. The on-field attacks of Tom Gamboa and Laz Diaz (two years in a row!). They employ Hawk Harrelson. San Diego is dull, but they play in the perfect city where the fan base is distracted by other things. Chicago shows up for the Cubs but not the Sox, because even they know the White Sox are a grimy team, I'd take dull over loathesome.
 
Hearing the arguments for San Diego moved them toward the top of the list for me too, but the more I think about the White Sox I keep finding reasons to put em back up top. Black Sox scandal. Charles Comiskey. The on-field attacks of Tom Gamboa and Laz Diaz (two years in a row!). They employ Hawk Harrelson. San Diego is dull, but they play in the perfect city where the fan base is distracted by other things. Chicago shows up for the Cubs but not the Sox, because even they know the White Sox are a grimy team, I'd take dull over loathesome.
Don't forget Disco Demolition Night.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,232
Falmouth
I think that we probably should count a franchise's entire history, it might make this exercise a little different:

1. Does the amount of success of the 90s/00s Braves balance the scales for the amount of crappy baseball that Boston National League fans had to watch from the 1880s through 1953?
As an aside, the Boston NL franchise was probably the most successful in the first 25 years of baseball (Cubs being the other real option). 1900-1953 they had 3 top 2 finishes, which isn't very good at all.

edit: Phillies remarkable run of suck is pretty tough to beat, but we're looking at 54 years on jack shit from Houston, and 47 years of the same from MTL/WAS and SD.

Washington/Minn has had long stretches of ugliness, as has WAS/Tex.

Phillies longevity makes them tough to beat, but the Indians are right there.
 
Last edited:

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
As an aside, the Boston NL franchise was probably the most successful in the first 25 years of baseball (Cubs being the other real option). 1900-1953 they had 3 top 2 finishes, which isn't very good at all.
Well, yes and baseball in the late 1800s was a very different game. But like you said, they had 50+ years of terrible baseball in Boston, which cancels out the good years they had prior to 1900.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,232
Falmouth
1914-15 were solid. :kitty:

I can't let go of the 19th century baseball though- it was those teams that galvanized the Boston baseball scene and made the Hub a real baseball town. You have the early Harry Wright Red Caps teams, and then the dominant Frank Selee teams of the 1890s. The impact of those teams is too big to ignore, especially with clubs like the Phillies embarrassing themselves on a consistent basis.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
The Padres are the worst performing team, but that only matters if you are a San Diego fan.

If I could go back in time and stop any team from existing, it would be the Rockies. It's not their fault, but the altitude issue is an unavoidable problem. Cities at 5,000+ feet altitude are not logical MLB expansion sites.