Before you answer let me remind you that the Nationals have not started an inning with the lead all year and have only had a lead for one inning. (they had a walk-off win)
2007-04-11 20:48:57 · 18 answers · asked by KnightsHuSayNee 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
YES. In fact. they haven't scored in any game in the first THREE innings. They are horrible!! Sorry, but I have to call them as I see them.
Chow!!
2007-04-12 05:30:34 · answer #1 · answered by No one 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The '62 Mets are the worst team ever, but the Nationals may give them a run. As a Mets fan, I really hope the Nationals win a bunch of games against the Phillies, Braves and Marlins and keep the '62 Mets as the worst.
2007-04-12 09:11:24 · answer #2 · answered by Gato Gordo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't say ever. But I do feel Manny Acta got one of the worst managerial jobs out there, because this team doesn't really have that much talent in a competitive NL East.
Unfortunately, it's going to be a long season for the Nationals and it's probably a team that will lose close or over a 100 games. Really, on paper it doesn't look that bad when you have a solid player in Zimmerman and Lopez, and a bunch of castoffs or young players. Pitching on the other hand, is going to be a problem all season long because after a injury proned Patterson who do they have that's actually good?
Jerome Williams? Young, unproven players? Come on, with that kind of starting rotation your not going to win very many games. And the bullpen looks okay, but I think their rotation is what makes them or breaks them. Once Patterson is hurt, who's going to step up? Ohka is gone, Ramon Ortiz, Armas, and Livan. That's nearly 3/4 of your rotation gone.
Acta is in a tough situation, where he doesn't have much to work with. In with, I feel sorry he took the job.
2007-04-12 04:06:56 · answer #3 · answered by *One Of A Kind* 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, just this season. The 2003 Detroit Tigers (42-119) are the worst team ever.
The 1962 Mets (40-120) had the most losses ever, but they were an expansion team that played before free-agency and big money contracts, making success more difficult and less likely for them.
The 2003 Tigers were bad in part, because they were lazy.
2007-04-12 04:13:44 · answer #4 · answered by BOOM 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
1899 Cleveland Spiders (20-134),
1962 Mets 40-120
2007-04-12 04:41:16 · answer #5 · answered by Lefty 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they can somehow manage a worse record than the 1899 Cleveland Spiders (20-134), then yes. Honestly, they won't be THE worst when it's all said and done. They'll just be the league's punching bag and might finish with about 105-115 losses, which isn't extraordinary.
2007-04-12 03:56:02 · answer #6 · answered by Nick N 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Things aren't looking very well in DC right now, but I don't think the Nats are going to be as bad as the 62' Mets. The original Mets is the gold standard for futility.
2007-04-12 09:35:09 · answer #7 · answered by davester1970 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, 2003 Detroit Tigers
2007-04-12 11:09:41 · answer #8 · answered by Hollywood 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Statistically, the mets hold that title (Cleveland played in the dead-ball era, the game was dramatically different back then, hense why the Mets record is referred to as the "Modern Day record"). Nats have as good of chance as any to break the mets record though...
2007-04-12 06:13:21 · answer #9 · answered by mekounknown 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
records dont always tell how bad a team is. maybe the nats can turn things around, but they are REALLY bad. think about it, the expos were really bad and they at least had vlad and this nats team was the same players from the expos. they really have no cap room and not a whole lot of young talent.
2007-04-12 09:16:06 · answer #10 · answered by pimpjuice 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋