Almost as bad as learning Star Wars' alternate ending of... Chewie as Luke's father!?
Anyway, don't mean for this to turn into an opportunity to pour it on about the 2020 squad, who face enough challenges. This isn't a value judgment. I hope this isn't another opportunity to rehash the Mookie trade, and I think we all understand that if not for an injury to Sale and ERod dealing with the terrifying consequences of a global pandemic, this team would look different. I'm also aware we're only 19 games into the season, and in a normal year making ANY definitive conclusions about a ballclub that many games in -- i.e. in late April -- would be foolish.
Still, given that we don't have a ton of positives to add about the current on-field product, I thought it might be nice to get some historical perspective here.
The question: just how bad are the 2020 Red Sox?
Tale of the Tape:
2020 Team: Started 6-13 (.316), full season pace of 51-111 (!). (85 runs scored, 112 runs against, Pythag of .376, full season pace of 60-102)
Obviously, again, it's a small sample size. Things could look a little different if Martinez, Devers, and others start hitting and any of the rotating cast of hot dog vendors we are trying out at pitcher turn out to be something. Then again, in this bizarre pandemic season, we're 19 games in and only about 18 days from the trade deadline, at which point we'll likely part ways with Workman and other productive players.
So for now we don't know where this team will end up. But what are the recent (and not so recent) comparisons?
2012 Team: 69-93 (.426) (734 runs scored, 806 allowed, Pythag of .457)
Ah, the Bobby V era. Wish we could we say we hardly knew ye, but that one year felt like three or four. For these purposes though, the truth would be more accurately stated: 2012 Post-Punto Trade (9-26, .257). We all had a terrible taste from the way 2011 ended (I was at Camden that night -- not great times), but prior to the Punto Trade on August 25th the team was 60-66 and while deeply unpleasant to root for, certainly not "worst" by any stretch of the imagination.
Certainly in the running with the the 2020 team, however.
1992 Team: 73-89 (.451) (599 runs, 669 allowed, pythag of .450).
Putting them here because by record they were the worst team of the 70s, 80s or 90s and many posters probably remember this team. That said, I don't think there's a good argument to be made they were worse than really any of these other teams, which oddly speaks to how solid the Sox were for three decades despite some heartbreaking playoff losses in that stretch.
But this offense. Woof. No one hit more than 15 (!) HR, stole more than 7 bases, or even batted above .276. Literally. Not just regulars or starters. No one. Some guy named Mike Brumley had 1 AB. If he'd gotten a hit he would have batted 1.000! Well, he didn't. Our primary Designated Hitter, the dude we decided to hit for the pitcher presumably so he could focus on hitting while the pitcher focused on, y'know, pitching... was an over the hill 36-year-old Jack Clark, who hit .210 with 5 HR and an 83 OPS+ in 257 ABs and seemed to generally maintain a hate-hate relationship with teammates and fans alike (my brother claims the Fenway crowd cheered when he was removed for a pinch runner one night and he threw his helmet onto the field in response, as all classy athletes would).
Remarkably the California Angels had an even worse offense, but goodness gracious this team was not dangerous at the dish.
1965 Team: 62-100 (.383) (669 runs, 791 allowed, pythag of .424)
Finally, we get to a legitimate answer (at least in modern times). Still, even though I'm far too young to have been alive for this campaign, it's tough to see why this team was SO bad from BRef. Yaz had a very good year (.395 OBP, 156 OPS+), Tony C hit 32 HR, and 5 of 9 regulars had an OPS+ over 118. As you would expect, they were tied for 3rd in the AL in runs scored/game.
So the problem apparently was the pitching, where they were last in the AL in runs allowed/game. That's the story about these pre-'67 teams I never saw, right? All bat, no glove? Except... given this was three years before the mound was lowered and league-wide pitching stats were so different, every one of the starters looks like they would have been an ace with the 2020 Red Sox. To wit: our #3 starter Dave Morehead went 10-18 with a 4.06 ERA with 163 Ks in 192 IP. Sign me up! Oh, except in '65 that was only good for a 92 ERA+. Mound height and physics is a real thing, I guess. Also wild to see infamous closer Monster Dick Radatz pitched 124 innnigs, won 9 games, lost 11, and saved 22.
Again, different eras and all this happened 20 years before I was born, but from stats alone this team feels far closer to their pythag (69 wins) than their actual performance, and their 14-28 record in 1-run games feels fluky -- consider that the 1965 Kansas City Athletics went 59-103 but managed to finish 22-23 in single run contests.
For timing's sake, I'm skipping over a few bad but not terrible teams like 1943 to get to:
1932 Team: 43-111 (.279) (566 runs scored, 915 allowed, pythag of .293)
And I think we have a winner! Almost certainly the #1 draft pick in this conversation for a reason. I mean, just LOOK at runs scored and runs allowed. They were last in the AL in runs scored/game... by MORE than half a run (4.4 to 3.7). Tied for last in the AL in runs allowed/game. And let's take a moment to marvel that they were somehow able to finish 64 (!!!) games behind the Yankees (with Ruth hitting .341 with 41 HR, ugh). Again: 64 games back in a 154 game season!!
A good column was written this summer about the '32 squad on another site, so I'll link to it and include some choice quotes here:
There's some additional bad squads from other years: the '27, '26, and '25 Sox also lost 100+ games (frankly, it's a good thing relegation isn't a thing stateside -- from 1925 to 1932 the Sox lost 96+ games all but one year... when they lost 90) and the 1906 Sox were also terrible, but I think the 1932 Sox were worse by just about every measure.
So there you have it! Comparatively speaking, all of you who suffered through the 1932 Sox should hopefully agree the 2020 version is far better, and much more akin to the 2012 and 1965 versions.
So what did I miss? Thoughts?
Edit: I also just want to add: looking through the Franchise Encyclopedia here is a reminder of how fortunate we have been as fans in my opinion. The Red Sox have almost always been either excellent, good, or average in my lifetime (mid-'80s on). That's impressive.
Anyway, don't mean for this to turn into an opportunity to pour it on about the 2020 squad, who face enough challenges. This isn't a value judgment. I hope this isn't another opportunity to rehash the Mookie trade, and I think we all understand that if not for an injury to Sale and ERod dealing with the terrifying consequences of a global pandemic, this team would look different. I'm also aware we're only 19 games into the season, and in a normal year making ANY definitive conclusions about a ballclub that many games in -- i.e. in late April -- would be foolish.
Still, given that we don't have a ton of positives to add about the current on-field product, I thought it might be nice to get some historical perspective here.
The question: just how bad are the 2020 Red Sox?
Good thing it’s a short season. It will keep the Sox from losing 100 games.
I mean, right now the Sox have the worst record in the AL and the second worst record in the MLB, and are getting absolutely blasted every single night out there...
My answer: definitely not the worst EVER. But since the 1930s? Maybe.Pretty clear they are the worst or 2nd/3rd worst team in the AL. Impressive decline since 2018.
Tale of the Tape:
2020 Team: Started 6-13 (.316), full season pace of 51-111 (!). (85 runs scored, 112 runs against, Pythag of .376, full season pace of 60-102)
Obviously, again, it's a small sample size. Things could look a little different if Martinez, Devers, and others start hitting and any of the rotating cast of hot dog vendors we are trying out at pitcher turn out to be something. Then again, in this bizarre pandemic season, we're 19 games in and only about 18 days from the trade deadline, at which point we'll likely part ways with Workman and other productive players.
So for now we don't know where this team will end up. But what are the recent (and not so recent) comparisons?
2012 Team: 69-93 (.426) (734 runs scored, 806 allowed, Pythag of .457)
Ah, the Bobby V era. Wish we could we say we hardly knew ye, but that one year felt like three or four. For these purposes though, the truth would be more accurately stated: 2012 Post-Punto Trade (9-26, .257). We all had a terrible taste from the way 2011 ended (I was at Camden that night -- not great times), but prior to the Punto Trade on August 25th the team was 60-66 and while deeply unpleasant to root for, certainly not "worst" by any stretch of the imagination.
Certainly in the running with the the 2020 team, however.
1992 Team: 73-89 (.451) (599 runs, 669 allowed, pythag of .450).
Putting them here because by record they were the worst team of the 70s, 80s or 90s and many posters probably remember this team. That said, I don't think there's a good argument to be made they were worse than really any of these other teams, which oddly speaks to how solid the Sox were for three decades despite some heartbreaking playoff losses in that stretch.
But this offense. Woof. No one hit more than 15 (!) HR, stole more than 7 bases, or even batted above .276. Literally. Not just regulars or starters. No one. Some guy named Mike Brumley had 1 AB. If he'd gotten a hit he would have batted 1.000! Well, he didn't. Our primary Designated Hitter, the dude we decided to hit for the pitcher presumably so he could focus on hitting while the pitcher focused on, y'know, pitching... was an over the hill 36-year-old Jack Clark, who hit .210 with 5 HR and an 83 OPS+ in 257 ABs and seemed to generally maintain a hate-hate relationship with teammates and fans alike (my brother claims the Fenway crowd cheered when he was removed for a pinch runner one night and he threw his helmet onto the field in response, as all classy athletes would).
Remarkably the California Angels had an even worse offense, but goodness gracious this team was not dangerous at the dish.
1965 Team: 62-100 (.383) (669 runs, 791 allowed, pythag of .424)
Finally, we get to a legitimate answer (at least in modern times). Still, even though I'm far too young to have been alive for this campaign, it's tough to see why this team was SO bad from BRef. Yaz had a very good year (.395 OBP, 156 OPS+), Tony C hit 32 HR, and 5 of 9 regulars had an OPS+ over 118. As you would expect, they were tied for 3rd in the AL in runs scored/game.
So the problem apparently was the pitching, where they were last in the AL in runs allowed/game. That's the story about these pre-'67 teams I never saw, right? All bat, no glove? Except... given this was three years before the mound was lowered and league-wide pitching stats were so different, every one of the starters looks like they would have been an ace with the 2020 Red Sox. To wit: our #3 starter Dave Morehead went 10-18 with a 4.06 ERA with 163 Ks in 192 IP. Sign me up! Oh, except in '65 that was only good for a 92 ERA+. Mound height and physics is a real thing, I guess. Also wild to see infamous closer Monster Dick Radatz pitched 124 innnigs, won 9 games, lost 11, and saved 22.
Again, different eras and all this happened 20 years before I was born, but from stats alone this team feels far closer to their pythag (69 wins) than their actual performance, and their 14-28 record in 1-run games feels fluky -- consider that the 1965 Kansas City Athletics went 59-103 but managed to finish 22-23 in single run contests.
For timing's sake, I'm skipping over a few bad but not terrible teams like 1943 to get to:
1932 Team: 43-111 (.279) (566 runs scored, 915 allowed, pythag of .293)
And I think we have a winner! Almost certainly the #1 draft pick in this conversation for a reason. I mean, just LOOK at runs scored and runs allowed. They were last in the AL in runs scored/game... by MORE than half a run (4.4 to 3.7). Tied for last in the AL in runs allowed/game. And let's take a moment to marvel that they were somehow able to finish 64 (!!!) games behind the Yankees (with Ruth hitting .341 with 41 HR, ugh). Again: 64 games back in a 154 game season!!
A good column was written this summer about the '32 squad on another site, so I'll link to it and include some choice quotes here:
Good times. Here's the link: https://bosoxinjection.com/2020/07/01/red-sox-1932-bad-franchise-history/They were last in the American League (AL) in batting average (.251), runs (566), doubles (253), OBP (.314), Slugging (.351), OPS (.664), and last by being hit by a pitch (12) since it is doubtful anyone on offense needed the occasional dusting.
Pitching was another sad tale as the Sox were an AL last in ERA (5.02), Complete Games (42), Walks (612), FIP (4.66), WHIP (1.605), and Strikeouts (365). And defense they sparkled with a seventh-place .963 Fielding Percentage – slightly ahead of the dreadful Pale Hose (.957).
Fenway Park had all the attraction of a landfill as the park was rapidly deteriorating with still unrepaired damage from a 1926 fire. The Red Sox – impacted by Blue Laws – still played the occasional Sunday contest at an equally depressing Braves Field. The Braves were far more an attractive baseball option with a .500 record (77-77) and an attendance slightly over 500,000.
There's some additional bad squads from other years: the '27, '26, and '25 Sox also lost 100+ games (frankly, it's a good thing relegation isn't a thing stateside -- from 1925 to 1932 the Sox lost 96+ games all but one year... when they lost 90) and the 1906 Sox were also terrible, but I think the 1932 Sox were worse by just about every measure.
So there you have it! Comparatively speaking, all of you who suffered through the 1932 Sox should hopefully agree the 2020 version is far better, and much more akin to the 2012 and 1965 versions.
So what did I miss? Thoughts?
Edit: I also just want to add: looking through the Franchise Encyclopedia here is a reminder of how fortunate we have been as fans in my opinion. The Red Sox have almost always been either excellent, good, or average in my lifetime (mid-'80s on). That's impressive.
Last edited: