Detroit is so bad, the pitcher who beat them in the first game of the doubleheader didn't even have to throw a pitch!

B.J. Ryan came in with 2 outs in the 7th and the Orioles down 2-1. He picked off Omar Infante on first base for the 3rd out in the 7th. In the top of the 8th the Orioles took the lead and held on to win.

And the Orioles won the second game of the doubleheader. The Tigers are now a stunning 3-23!

Joe in Philly: you beat me to posting about this. When I read about B.J. Ryan getting a win without throwing a single pitch, I did a "Danny Thomas spit-take" and re-read the article. This could happen only to the Tigers.

~Adam

Well, after I logged off I found out that the second game was bizarre as well. Tigers' pitcher Mike Maroth had a no-hitter through 7 innings and a 3-0 lead. He lost the no-hitter, and the O's rallied for 6 runs with 2 outs in the 8th. Unreal. And today I read that the already small crowd dwindled as it was raining, and by the end there were about 100 people left in the Comerica stands.

Tonight, they lost to Tampa Bay 2-0. They got only one hit, in the first inning.

I'm starting to develop a morbid fascination with this team. wink

[ May 02, 2003, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Joe perhaps your morbid fascination will be fulfilled this year as the Tigers seek to challenge the 1962 Mets season of 40-120.

Don't look now, but the Tigers have.... eek! ....WON TWO IN A ROW! wink Not that many people witnessed their victory last night...

Joe in Philly gets interested in the Tigers and they start winning....a coincidence?? Harmonic convergence??

~Adam

Make it THREE in a row! And it's the first time since last August that the Tigers have won a series from another team. Hmmmm...if they're just going to be another mediocre team that's going to make me lose interest. wink

JIPhilly - maybe you're interested in Detroit cuz Thome is in his "April thru June swoon" I warned you about [ .238 average 6 home runs ]

Seriously, I hope Detroit starts losing again so Cleveland has someone to look down upon !

If only Detroit could play Baltimore every day...

What, did a fairy sprinkle some pixie dust to switch the Yankees and Tigers??? frown

Tigers win their 4th in a row, sweeping the 3-game series in Baltimore!

Maybe it's time for a new thread: Orioles sinking to new lows...

What's so new about that?

What's really stunning is given their historically awful start, the Tiggers are only 2 games behind the Indians! What happened in Cleveland?

Just the thread would be new, not the fact that the Orioles are downtrodden. wink

The Indians are now in rebuilding mode. It'll take time for their young talent to develop (assuming they're good enough) so they can start winning again.

Bringing back a prior thread for an update.

Detroit is now 18-61 after losing 20 of their last 22. They're on a pace to win just 37 games--even worse than the '62 Mets! And they have three pitchers threatening to lose 20 games this year. Mike Maroth and Jeremy Bonderman are both 2-12 and Adam Bernero is 1-11. No pitcher has lost 20 in a season since Oakland's Brian Kingman in 1980.

It boggles the mind that a non-expansion team can be so bad.

And the great thing about the Tigers having so many pitchers on pace to lose 20: they can't keep them out of their few starts to get them to avoid the chance of losing 20 to save them the "humiliation". Yeah, Brian Kingman really looks embarrassed and humiliated from all the media attention whenever a pitcher gets to 18 or 19 losses. (Facetiousness alert.)

I'll repeat my complaint from when the Brewers kept their second best player (Jose Hernandez) out of games the last week of the 2002 so he could avoud breaking the strike-out record: players make enough money nowadays to suffer the consequences of their performance. If it means setting a strike out record, so be it. If it means losing 20, so be it.

I think Mike Maroth will be the one to get to 20 L's first.

While I agree with your overall comments, CITT, about managers sitting players at the end of the season to keep them from setting a "dubious record" I disagree that Maroth will be the first pitcher to lose 20 in a single season since Brian Kingman....in fact, Maroth had another decent performance last night in beating the Blue Jays (who have scored more runs than any other team in the majors except for Boston -- and that was thanks to the Red Sox annihilation of the Marlins' pitching staff over the weekend) to improve his record to 3-12 and lower his ERA to a respectable 4.86, down nearly a run from the 5.73 ERA he carried when he was 0-9 on May 18th.

In addition to the Brewers sitting Jose Hernandez during the last two weeks of 2002, one of the more obvious "benchings" took place in 2000 when the Phils refused to start Omal Daal (who finished the season at 4-19 ), just so he would not lose 20....btw, Daal is now 4-10 for the Orioles in 2003 (with a 5.86 ERA) and was finally relegated to the bullpen about two weeks ago....while it is highly probable that one of the Tigers pitchers will eclipse the 20 loss mark this season, I think it will more likely be Adam Bernero (1-11, 5.79 ERA) or Jeremy Bonderman (2-12, 5.06) than Maroth, assuming Alan Trammell keeps them in the starting rotation, of course.

Bonderman is the most likely candidate to be "protected" by his manager, since he's a little younger than Maroth and is generally considered to have an unlimited ceiling. So I don't think he'll be allowed the opportunity to lose 20.

Bernero is bad enough that he could lose his place in the rotation. It'll be tough to rack up enough L's from middle relief. That's also true of a number of 20-loss candidates on other teams, like M'waukee's Glendon Rusch, who won't get to 20 pitching from AAA.

Maroth, on the other hand, is the perfect storm. He's good enough to keep getting starts. His team will score so few runs that even giving up 4 runs a start would doom him to lotsa L's. And since he's not the "future of the franchise," like Bonderman, the manager won't protect him because somebody has to pitch for the Tigers in September.

So, even with his recent run of quality starts -- which I generally expect will continue -- I still think he's baseball's best bet to displace Brian Kingman as the reigning 20-loss champion.

I think you hit the nail on the head--poor Maroth may be just good enough to be allowed to lose 20 games. Remember, the only guy to lose 19 games twice was Jose de Leon, who was really not a terrible pitcher.

It's the bottom of the eighth and the Tig's are up 5 runs to nothing....Toronto just had a great double play...I figure even the Tigers may be able to blow THIS in the top of the ninth....

As Rob Neyer pointed out recently, there's no disgrace in 20 losses by a pitcher -- Steve Carlton, Phil Niekro (twice!),Jerry Koosman, and Mel Stottlemyre did it.

Detroit's benefitting from some good luck lately...don't know, however, if this year will turn out be that good overall, though.

[ July 15, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

Are they or aren't they? (The worst team of the modern era, that is.)

The Tigers have to go 32-7 the rest of the way ... which is a winning percentage of about .820 ... just to avoid losing 100 games! Not even the hottest team from here on out will have that good of a winning percentage over a six-week stretch.

On the other hand, if they go 8-31, a winning percentage of .205 (not much worse than their current .252 percentage), they would end up with a final record of just 39 wins (39-123 to be exact) and put an end to all those endless stories about the lovable loser '62 Mets (with their 40-120 record). The Tigers' current winning percentage projects out to an unhistoric 41-121 (which is still one more loss than the premier edition of the NY Mets).

This is doable. The Tigers are actually getting worse as the season progresses. Their pitching has fallen apart of late, to the point where only the notoriously pitching-deprived Texas Rangers have surrendered more runs. And the Tigers play in an extreme pitchers' park! They don't look that bad on the field, but with everybody on their roster below average, all that adds up to one big giant stinking mess.

But is it an historic stinking mess?

[ August 18, 2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

What's their schedule like the rest of the season? Do they play a lot of contenders? (Does it even matter?)

I remember seeing somewhere that the Twins have one of the easiest remaining schedules in the Majors, and that's because they still have alot of games against the Tigers. Everyone has heard of the Tigers woes against the Twins over the last two seasons, Twins had a 16 or 18 game winning streak against the Tigers broken earlier this month, and then proceeded to start a new one .

The Tigers schedule has got to be tougher than some ... because they don't get to play the Tigers!

Mike Maroth: 18 losses. Unless they stop pitching him, he seems a cinch to lose 20. Jeremy Bonderman is at 16 losses.

This comparison of the Tigers with the '62 Mets shows that Detroit has a worse offense, but the Mets outstunk them at pitching and defense.

And Jayson Stark wrote about a computer-simulated Worst Series face-off between the two teams. Mets in seven? I hope Casey's crew keeps the record, for mythology's sake. Where's the Marv Throneberry of the current Tigers? No such animal...

Since I will in New York for a couple of days next month, the team that is in town happens to be... You guessed it, Detroit! So I have got tickets to the Tigers and the Yankees on September 09 at the Stadium. I want the Tigers to somehow get to at least 42 wins (just not at my team's expense). This is sad... I have always had a soft spot for this team. That 1984 team still brings back memories. I suppose this 2003 team will bring back memories, too. As Jim Rome said yesterday, you would think that even an AAA ball club could fall into winning about 35-40 games.

[ August 21, 2003, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Cattledog ]

A magical(?) night: the Tigers join the 1962 Mets in the category of teams in the modern era that lost 100 games before September 1st, and Mike Maroth loses his 19th game. Brian Kingman, the last to lose 20, is said to want to attend Maroth's next start.

Why a six-man rotation? What's the point of that?

The point would be to minimize the starters' loss totals. Bad priority.

With their TWO CONSECUTIVE WINS (!!!) over Cleveland, the Tigers need only 5 more wins to guarantee a better winning pct than the Original Mets'.

[ September 04, 2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

The Tigers have been en fuego lately, going 5-5 over their last 10 games (hey, "en fuego" is relative here).

Their record improved to 36-102, a winning percentage of .261, which projects out to a 162-game record of 42-120. That would equal the '62 Mets in total losses, but exceed the Mets in victories by two.

It's looking like the Tigers are going to miss their brush with history ... although Maroth losing 20 still has the green light ... and a 6-19 record.

Sad update: Jeremy Bonderman (6-18) has been pulled from the Tigers rotation by manager Alan Trammell. Maroth is now the only Tiger still scheduled to keep his date with destiny. Of course if both Maroth and Bonderman are pulled from the rotation ... given that they are the Tigers two best starters (again, relatively speaking here) ... that would increase the odds of beating the '62 Mets for total team futility.

Oh the managerial chess game going on inside Trammell's head.

Maybe Bonderman will lose two games out of the bullpen.

A THIRD straight win over the Tribe! Can Maroth be a Bizarro "stopper"?

MAROTH DID IT!

20 losses for 2003!

Apparently the stress got to the poor kid. Eight earned runs in just over three innings. Granted, it was against the best hitting team in baseball 2003, but that would project to an ERA of 24.00 if that pace were kept up.

And please remember Brian Kingman, for after tonight, no one else will.

Trammell might as well put Bonderman back in the rotation. If two of them lose 20, it would take away a lot of the sting -- and the stigma.

[ September 05, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

I just had a thought--if Bonderman did lose two games in relief, would they note the "accomplishment" with an asterisk like the Maris home run record had for so long? wink

This was posted by AU Tiger in LA in a separate thread...
The Tigers are 38-114. The only teams with more losses are the 1935 Boston Braves (38-115), 1916 Philadelphia Athletics (36-117), 1962 New York Mets (40-120) and 1899 Cleveland Spiders (20-134). So they need to go 5-5 the rest of the way, in 7 games with the Twins and 3 with KC, to avoid reaching the 1962 Mets' total.

Maroth lost his 21st last night. Yikes. Has Bonderman been put back into the rotation yet? I thought I read that he probably would be at some point. Has he even pitched in relief? I don't think it's fair that he gets to avoid losing 20 but Maroth didn't.

To answer my question: Bonderman started tonight for the first time in awhile...and lost his 19th.

The Tiger death march moves onward.

Spanked by the never-say-die K.C. Royals, 12-6. (I think the Royals have finally scored more runs than they've given up for the year.) Have the Tiggers just given up for the year?

Ten losses in a row. 38-118 record. Eighty games under .500. Eighty! They have to win five of their last six games to avoid equalling the Mets record of 120 losses in a season. Just splitting their last six games (and that's a long stretch for this team to play .500 ball) and they set a new record.

The 2003 Tigers are on the cusp of being historic-bad.

God, I've seen some horrible "lowlights" from the Tiggy's lately on ESPN. I wonder what the ownership will do with the entire organization after a season of this magnitude. The Tigers are turning into the Bengals of MLB; somebody needs to put a stop to that.

The Bengals? Hell, they're turning into the Washington Generals.

Well, let's see, the Detroit Tigers are currently 38-118. The Detroit Shock, the WNBA team, won 35 games. Out of 42. That takes doing...

With their 40th win last night, the Tigers have, IMHO, surrendered any claim of outstinking the '62 Mets. After all, if they lose the last four and finish 40-122, all they've done is lose two games that the Amazins (40-120) WOULD have if they've played 'em.

Not sure I buy that -- the Mets were an EXPANSION team, without a farm system, and were put together at the last second to compensate for the Dodgers and Giants leaving.

The Tigers are a century-old franchise with fairly long-term ownership, a history, and an established farm system. Also, the 1962 Mets played in an NL with fewer teams -- thus, the talent wasn't NEARLY as spread around (read: watered down) as MLB is today. Add to that that the Tigers have the DH, and STILL can't score any runs, and no, this team is just God Awful -- and there's NO excuse for it to be this way.

No one's gonna persuade anyone on this issue, but there's more talent in MLB now than in '62. The Mets also got to play another expansion team, the Houston Colt .45s, and it didn't help.

The Tigers actually won 3 in a row, but lost no. 119 tonight to the Twins.

It looks like the Tigers may be able to avoid matching the '62 Mets infamous record of 120 losses after all -- or at least the worst they can do now is tie it after rallying from 8 runs down in the fifth to defeat the Twins 9-8 on Saturday night....I know Minnesota was resting a few of their regulars for the postseason but you gotta give the Tigers credit for not just throwing in the towel....and Mike Maroth (he of the 8-21 record) will start the season finale tomorrow in an effort to avoid their 120th loss.

No matter what, though, this year's Tigers shouldn't be considered the worst team ever because even if they lose Sunday their winning percentage will still surpass that of the '62 Mets (since the Mets for some reason only played 160 games that year to finish 40-120 while Detroit's 42 wins already guarantee them a higher winning pct)....You gotta give Alan Trammell credit, though, for keeping his cool and exhibiting patience during this trying season....I can't recall hearing about any outbursts (at least not publicly anyway) and I can only imagine how badly Piniella or Bowa would have reacted in this situation.

[ September 27, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I am actually glad that the 2003 Tigers were able to avoid the "worst team ever" title that the 1962 Mets have. Being a Yankee fan, I don't like many of my fellow AL teams (especially Boston). But the Detroit Tigers were once a very proud and successful organization, and I have always respected them. I know the economics of the game have changed in 40 years (major understatement), but the Mets did win a World Series 7 years later. Maybe we should all watch out for the 2010 Detroit Tigers?

Tigers will not tie the futility mark. They won today so they finish with 119 losses.

Even though the Mets had more losses, I think this Tigers team is worse. The Mets being an expansion team gets them some slack, IMO. The Tigers have embarrassingly fielded a AA team.

Economics isn't really a factor. The Tigers got their new stadium already, and then turned much worse.

They didn't break the Mets' record, so they're now just another lousy team.