View Full Version : OT: Most Underachieving Team ?
I would like to hear members input on the biggest underachiever of all time.
I don't mean worst team for a season ('62 Mets) or worst team for a century (Cubs).
I mean what team in your opinion had the most talent with little or nothing to show for it? Could be either pre or post-war
I'll start with my pick: the SF Giants of the mid '60s.
Do any of you have some thoughts on this?
sycks22
06-06-2013, 08:01 PM
I'll give you an entire decade. 1990's Braves. Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Avery, Naegle. Amazing staff and only 1 title to show for it. Didn't they make 15 straight playoffs?
T206BrownHindu
06-06-2013, 08:01 PM
The Oakland Athletics of the late 80s/early 90s...only 1 title with that team full of superstars!
Honorable Mention would go to the mid-80s New York Mets.
z28jd
06-06-2013, 08:09 PM
1891 Pirates. The lineup had:
Jake Beckley, Ned Hanlon, Louis Bierbauer, Pete Browning, Connie Mack, Doggie Miller and some other good players, plus Pud Galvin, Mark Baldwin, Harry Staley all pitching. Finished 55-80
http://pittsburghpirateshistory.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/the-1891-pittsburgh-pirates/
auggiedoggy
06-06-2013, 10:14 PM
The 2013 Blue Jays!!! ARRRRRRRGH!!! :mad:
itjclarke
06-06-2013, 11:24 PM
I would like to hear members input on the biggest underachiever of all time.
I don't mean worst team for a season ('62 Mets) or worst team for a century (Cubs).
I mean what team in your opinion had the most talent with little or nothing to show for it? Could be either pre or post-war
I'll start with my pick: the SF Giants of the mid '60s.
Do any of you have some thoughts on this?
I'd agree in part with those '60's giants but they had to go against some amazing teams (Dodgers, Cards).
This year's Angels and Dodgers seem on their way, though it's a long season. Also, Yankees post A-Rod (2003) and then Sheffield signings are up there.. As are many years of high salaried Mets teams in the 90's and 2000's.
39special
06-07-2013, 03:39 AM
The Brooklyn Dodgers from '47-'57. 1 title with all that talent.In that time
they had 5 MVP's,4 Rookie of the Years,1 Cy Young,4 HOFers
(I think Hodges should be in there also),not including Drysdale,Koufax,and
Alston.
101SOX19
06-07-2013, 04:23 AM
1916 - 1920 Chicago White Sox
Without the War & Scandal this team would be remembered for all the right reasons.
HercDriver
06-07-2013, 05:02 AM
The 60's Cubs had four HOFers (Banks, Williams, Santo, Jenkins) in their lineup and couldn't win the pennant.
Take Care,
Geno
hangman62
06-07-2013, 05:10 AM
Yes, those Cubs team around that era had quite a few All Star players, that infield was solid with Kessinger, and Santo. Santo later did Cub broadcasts, He had an awful hair piece that was clearly visable on the air
EvilKing00
06-07-2013, 05:43 AM
I'll give you an entire decade. 1990's Braves. Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Avery, Naegle. Amazing staff and only 1 title to show for it. Didn't they make 15 straight playoffs?
As a met fan, looking at ATL I don't think they Underachied, like u said the won the division almost every year for over a decade.
CMIZ5290
06-07-2013, 06:24 AM
The first year (1990) of the Braves run gets my vote. Glavine's first couple of years in the bigs were terrible, Avery was only 19 years old fresh out of high school, and the Braves did not have Maddox then. Take a look at their starting lineup, a bunch of real young players or no names. Their closer was Alejandro Pena who every one thought had been washed up....
TUM301
06-07-2013, 06:48 AM
2011, 2012 Boston Red Sox. from Sept 2011 thru the 2012 season they were around 77-113 with a payroll of 165+ million. Thank God Magic and the Dodgers came along and took Beckett and Crawford off their hands.
I'll give you an entire decade. 1990's Braves. Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Avery, Naegle. Amazing staff and only 1 title to show for it. Didn't they make 15 straight playoffs?
I like the choice of the Braves. Probably the best starting piching for a sustained period. They did get to 5 World Series though, even if they only won one of them. They always seemed to have one critical moment where they could have won if only they made this critical play. But they didn't.
Like Lonnie Smith pausing at second base and then never scoring.
The Oakland Athletics of the late 80s/early 90s...only 1 title with that team full of superstars!
Honorable Mention would go to the mid-80s New York Mets.
The A's are a good choice. Like the 1969-1971 Orioles, they had the best record for 3 straight years,were heavily favored in the Series, but found a way to lose to teams that weren't nearly as good as them.
The Brooklyn Dodgers from '47-'57. 1 title with all that talent.In that time
they had 5 MVP's,4 Rookie of the Years,1 Cy Young,4 HOFers
(I think Hodges should be in there also),not including Drysdale,Koufax,and
Alston.
The "wait 'til next year Dodgers are a great choice. Like the 1990 Braves, they dominated the regular season, but almost always lost the Series. They had the opposite of the Braves pitching, they had a great starting lineup. IMO the 1953 Dodgers had the best starting eight in history! But not enough pitching, so they always came up short against the Yanks (except of course 1955).
Six World Series against the same team in 10 years, and a team in the same city. It must have sucked to be a baseball fan in the 1950s if you lived anywhere but New York.
I'd agree in part with those '60's giants but they had to go against some amazing teams (Dodgers, Cards).
I agree with you about the Cardinals and Dodgers, they were excellent teams. But I still think the Giants underachieved.
5 HOFs Willie Mays, Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey, Juan Marichal and Gaylord Perry.
Mike McCormick (1967 Cy Young)
and some other very good players: Felipe Alou, Tom Haller, Jim Ray Hart.
And all they got was one pennant and a World Series loss.
the 'stache
06-08-2013, 06:13 PM
My Milwaukee Brewers
/thread
43 years my franchise has now existed. One World Series appearance, and it was 31 years ago. Even the lowly Marlins have won two World Series.
sycks22
06-08-2013, 06:43 PM
I like the choice of the Braves. Probably the best starting piching for a sustained period. They did get to 5 World Series though, even if they only won one of them. They always seemed to have one critical moment where they could have won if only they made this critical play. But they didn't.
Like Lonnie Smith pausing at second base and then never scoring.
That Lonnie Smith play came against my Twins in '91. Knoblauch saved the series with that fake at 2nd. Also loved when Hrbek pulled Gant off of the bag.
Pete, do you also remember in game one when a pop foul landed on Selig's daughter? Right on her head. I know I shouldn't laugh at someone's pain. :o
Hey Pete, what happens if Lonnie scores?
Bottom of the 8th,with runners on first and third, Cox intentionally walks Kirby and Hrbek lines into a DP. If instead of a tie game, the Braves would have led 1-0, and no way do they walk Kirby with 2nd base open. So Kirby bats, and maybe the Twins tie or go ahead.
We'll never know, but it is possible that even if Smith scores the Braves don't win. :confused:
glchen
06-09-2013, 01:40 AM
That Seattle team that won the most games but couldn't close the deal in the post season.
Yes, the 2001 Mariners- 116 wins, but they didn't even make it to the Series.
jimivintage
06-09-2013, 06:49 AM
Wow, surprised no one mentioned the Cleveland Indians run from 1995 - 2001. Two WS appearances and 7 straight division championships with no rings to show for it. Those teams bolstered some of the best lineups.....of all-time! Check out the stats for yourselves.....many MLB records at the time. First team ever to score over 1,000 runs in a season. When you are batting Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome near the BOTTOM of your order....you know you have a sweet team! :)
Jlighter
06-09-2013, 07:34 AM
Check out the stats for yourselves.....many MLB records at the time. First team ever to score over 1,000 runs in a season.
That doesn't sound right.:confused:
And it isn't.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16483
jimivintage
06-09-2013, 09:31 AM
OK.....had my facts wrong. It's all good. First in a VERY long time. My point was that it was an underachieving team. Albert Belle had his 50/50 year during that run (first 50 home runs and 50 doubles) and Ramirez had 165 RBIs.
Danny Smith
06-09-2013, 09:42 AM
The 2013 nationals.
auggiedoggy
06-09-2013, 09:44 AM
The 2013 nationals.
No match for the 2013 Blow Jays. :(
OK.....had my facts wrong. It's all good. First in a VERY long time. My point was that it was an underachieving team. Albert Belle had his 50/50 year during that run (first 50 home runs and 50 doubles) and Ramirez had 165 RBIs.
Jim, this is a great point. I think that 1995 Cleveland team was the best hitting team I've seen, and I started watching in 1965.Jim Thome and Manny Ramirez hitting 6th and 7th in the lineup?
Bad luck for them, they ran into that great Atlanta pitching staff, and for once the Braves made all the big plays.
The 2013 nationals.
Yeah, it's not working out this year, but I think they'll take a step back this year and three steps forward next year. They are much to young for people to give up on them.