The Nats making history

[NatsDad14]

The Nat's 0-8 record in Extra innings is the 2nd worst in baseball history. Only 4 teams out 1474 have never won an extra inning game. 3 of those teams are in 2009, so only 1 team ever finished the season with no extra inning wins (1969 Montreal Expos) who went 0-12.


The Nats also have the worst record in history when scoring 5+ runs in a game. 11-16 (.407) is the worst with the 1915 Phillies the second worst with a .442 win percentage. In fact only 7 out of 2242 teams have a losing record with 5+ runs scored in Baseball history.

In fact, we are on pace to beat the 1962 Mets record of futility. Through 57 games, the Nats are 15-42 while the 1962 Mets are 16-41.

[blue911]

The Nats aren't averaging 5 runs a game.

[Cinqo de Mayo]

The 2009 Nats are becoming quite versatile at finding new ways to lose.

Two weeks ago, WTOP pundit Chris Core called for Manny Acta's firing. Since then, the Nats have gone 2-12, and the offense now appears completely demoralized. The general has lost the faith of his troops, and even if you believe Acta holds no responsibilty, it's become increasingly obvious that he must go.

[ronnynat]

The Nats aren't averaging 5 runs a game.

"The Nats also have the worst record in history when scoring 5+ runs in a game."

Not per game.

[blue911]

"The Nats also have the worst record in history when scoring 5+ runs in a game."

Not per game.

Next sentence.

In fact only 7 out of 2242 teams have a losing record with 5+ runs scored in Baseball history.

[ronnynat]

Next sentence.

Yeah, he was talking about teams' records in games they score 5+ runs. Ours is 11-16 right now.

[DCFan]

 

[blue911]

Yeah, he was talking about teams' records in games they score 5+ runs. Ours is 11-16 right now.

Nope. If that was the case he would have used WHEN but he used WITH.

[ronnynat]

Nope. If that was the case he would have used WHEN but he used WITH.

I know he didn't word it correctly, but I thought it was pretty obvious what he meant.

[blue911]

I know he didn't word it correctly, but I thought it was pretty obvious what he meant.

Not at all. It's easy to look up teams that average 5+ runs per game. I don't know if even Project Scoresheet keeps track of W-L record when a team scores 5+.

[OldChelsea]

In fact, we are on pace to beat the 1962 Mets record of futility. Through 57 games, the Nats are 15-42 while the 1962 Mets are 16-41.

Through last night's result, 2009 Nats now projecting to 43-119 on the season, just one loss short of the modern MLB record set by those Amazin' Mets ('can't anybody here play this game?' - manager Casey Stengel).

The record is well within reach...hey, if we're going to suck anyway, let's suck with style!

[ronnynat]

Not at all. It's easy to look up teams that average 5+ runs per game. I don't know if even Project Scoresheet keeps track of W-L record when a team scores 5+.

I thought you used B-R. I only know how to look it up season-by-season.

Rk    Tm Year  G  W  L W-L%  RS  RA pythW-L%
1    BOS 2009 31 28  3 .903 237 128     .755
2    PHI 2009 34 30  4 .882 260 166     .694
3    SFG 2009 22 19  3 .864 152  91     .719
4    ATL 2009 21 18  3 .857 169  99     .727
5    TEX 2009 34 29  5 .853 241 140     .730
6    CHC 2009 26 22  4 .846 185 109     .725
7    TOR 2009 32 27  5 .844 247 126     .774
8    LAD 2009 32 27  5 .844 243 131     .756
9    PIT 2009 25 21  4 .840 194 105     .755
10   STL 2009 25 21  4 .840 180  95     .763
11   MIN 2009 28 23  5 .821 228 121     .761
12   TBR 2009 32 26  6 .813 266 149     .743
13   CHW 2009 23 18  5 .783 175  86     .786
14   FLA 2009 27 21  6 .778 188 131     .660
15   HOU 2009 23 17  5 .773 162 116     .648
16   KCR 2009 22 17  5 .773 162  90     .746
17   NYY 2009 35 27  8 .771 259 179     .663
18   MIL 2009 24 18  6 .750 179 118     .682
19   BAL 2009 24 18  6 .750 176 134     .622
20   LAA 2009 25 18  7 .720 182 138     .624
21   CIN 2009 25 18  7 .720 171 112     .684
22   OAK 2009 28 20  8 .714 188 124     .682
23   DET 2009 28 20  8 .714 221 141     .695
24   COL 2009 27 19  8 .704 215 134     .704
25   NYM 2009 30 21  9 .700 201 149     .634
26   ARI 2009 25 17  8 .680 179 144     .598
27   CLE 2009 34 23 11 .676 262 196     .630
28   SEA 2009 24 16  8 .667 157 116     .635
29   SDP 2009 24 15  9 .625 150 141     .528
30   WSN 2009 28 11 16 .407 196 199     .493

[HerndonNat]

By my math if we continue on a 2-12 pace the rest of the reason we'll win 15 more games.  That means we'll own last place all by ourselves with roughly 132 losses!

[HalfSmokes]

the pythageron makes me optimistic for next year, we should be winning at a .493 clip.

[blue911]

I thought you used B-R. I only know how to look it up season-by-season.

I do but I have no idea how you get those stats.

[ronnynat]

I do but I have no idea how you get those stats.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/situational.shtml

[OldChelsea]

By my math if we continue on a 2-12 pace the rest of the reason we'll win 15 more games.  That means we'll own last place all by ourselves with roughly 132 losses!

Right now, the earliest dates are:

TO TIE 'MODERN' MLB RECORD FOR LOSSES (120) - Saturday 5th September at Marlins

TO TIE ALL-TIME MLB RECORD FOR LOSSES (134) - Tuesday 22nd September vs Dodgers

[hammondsnats]

The 2009 Nats are becoming quite versatile at finding new ways to lose.

Two weeks ago, WTOP pundit Chris Core called for Manny Acta's firing. Since then, the Nats have gone 2-12, and the offense now appears completely demoralized. The general has lost the faith of his troops, and even if you believe Acta holds no responsibilty, it's become increasingly obvious that he must go.

it's a joke - actually it's appalling - that Manny Acta still has a job.  He's lost the clubhouse and he is not a good MLB manager.  You know what one day maybe in 10 years if he's with the Mets and they do good, good for him.  But that's 10 years from now and if our plan is so damn good, we'll be right up there with them.  Stop accepting failure and PATTERSON this dude.

[DCFan]

You know what one day maybe in 10 years if he's with the Mets and they do good, good for him.

I can't imagine the Mets or anyone else for that matter wanting anything to do with Manny. What you see is what you get and that ain't much, imho.

[Minty Fresh]

it's a joke - actually it's appalling - that Manny Acta still has a job.  He's lost the clubhouse and he is not a good MLB manager.  You know what one day maybe in 10 years if he's with the Mets and they do good, good for him.  But that's 10 years from now and if our plan is so damn good, we'll be right up there with them.  Stop accepting failure and PATTERSON this dude.

I'm starting to question whether or not it's even worth it at this point.  I believe we suck a lot worse than we all thought we did before the season started and this has not a whole lot to do with the manager.

[sportsfan882]

I'm starting to question whether or not it's even worth it at this point.  I believe we suck a lot worse than we all thought we did before the season started and this has not a whole lot to do with the manager.

yep this roster was poorly constructed and we are relying a lot of young starters. all of them except Lannan and maybe Martis would be in the Minors else where.

have to clean house after this season and begin the turn-around. with proper planning/spending/drafting we can be a 75 win team in 2010 and a winner in 2011.

[blue911]

I'm starting to question whether or not it's even worth it at this point.  I believe we suck a lot worse than we all thought we did before the season started and this has not a whole lot to do with the manager.

I thought the Nats would win 65 games this season. The Nationals would have to go 50-55 to make my prediction come true. There is a thread somewhere with preseason predictions, not one single person thought the team would be anywhere near this bad. For no other reason, the Nats need to fire Manny just so we look smarter.

[DCFan]

I'm starting to question whether or not it's even worth it at this point.  I believe we suck a lot worse than we all thought we did before the season started and this has not a whole lot to do with the manager.

The Nats have to do something to keep from going into the history books with the worst all time record and replacing the manager is an easy step. It may or may not work but it's one the Lerners have to make. And if they go with Riggleman, it won't even cost them anything extra. Bonus!! 

[hammondsnats]

It's not all on Manny, that's for sure, just like it's not all on the Lerners.  But the way the team is playing with lackadasical errors and fundamental mistakes ... a change is needed.  The rate we're going we'll be 30-84.  How on earth can a manager keep his job at that point? 

And SF, going through another rebuilding phase will set us back even more ... we wouldn't be competitive for another 3-4 years and that's if prospects actually pan out. 

[R-Zim#11]

But the way the team is playing with lackadasical errors and fundamental mistakes ...

I'll agree that it's not ALL on the manager -- but things like these are definitely a reflection of him. Acta should be shown the door -- and someone needs to hold players who make lackisdasical errors accountable. We have a lot of lollygaggers on this team that need a boot in the @$$.