Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Win or Lose, Boston Celtics' New Big 3 Era A Success

The 100-Loss Team's Road Back To The Playoffs

It seems to me that the belief is it will take the Astros seven years to rebuild. That's a long time and a number I'm not entirely satisfied with. So with a semester of Statistics 210 behind me I decided to look up every 100-loss team to find out what history says about how long it takes a team to get back to the post season after a 100-loss season.

I began by collecting data from 1961 to the present. I decided not to count the 100-loss season or the season in which the team made the playoffs. I wanted to focus on what would be considered the rebuilding years; Making the playoffs meant that team wasn't rebuilding anymore and expectations for that season were likely high.

Post 1961 100 Loss Teams

There are four teams I left out of the data because they've had 100-loss seasons and still need to make the playoffs to be included in the data. Those four teams are the Seattle Mariners (3 years), Washington Nationals (3 years), Kansas City Royals (9 years) and Pittsburg Pirates (10 years). Even adding those teams to the 1961+ data wouldn't significantly alter the data.

The range for 1961 to 2011 had a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 34 years. The median is 6 years, the 25th percentile is 4 years and the 75th percentile is 12 years. The one season turn around was accomplished by three teams. The San Francisco Giants, Oakland Athletics and Boston Red Sox. Both the Giants ('86) and Athletics ('80) posted an 83-79 record in between 100-loss season's and making the playoffs. The Red Sox in 1966 posted a 72-90 record and made the playoffs the next year with a 92-70 record.

On the other end of the spectrum are the Washington Senators. Established in 1961 they started their inception with a 100 loss season and didn't make the playoffs until 1996 when they were known as the Texas Rangers.

I wondered If I should give each expansion team a 5 year buffer, for establishing themselves in the league. That meant the Senators/Rangers didn't have a 100 loss season until 1972. With that adjustment, the maximum years now becomes 23 which also now includes the Cleveland Indians. The 25th percentile lowers to 2 years, the median becomes 7 and the 75th percentile 11. The data though suffers from a sample size issue.

Star-divide

Getting A Bigger Sample Size

With only 27 100 loss seasons I felt like a bigger sample size was needed to get a better picture. Initially I stuck to 100-loss teams after 1961 because in 1962 they began utilizing a 162 game schedule. I didn't want to dive to deep into baseball history due to differing variables such as the amount of teams and games played. But I needed a bigger sample size.

So, I decided to take the plunge and include every 100 loss team as far back as Baseball Reference would take me. My sample size jumped from 27 to 48 and for simplicity I decided not to provide any sort of grace period for the data.

34 years is still the max, however there are two teams instead of one with that max. The Philadelphia Athletics joined the Senators/Rangers as a 34 year rebuilding project. That rebuilding project began in 1936 and included two city changes first to Kansas City ('55) then to Oakland ('68). That's essentially World War II to disco.

With the increased sample size the median rose from 6 to 8 years, the 25th percentile went from 4 to 5 years and the 75th percentile went from 12 to 16 years. There does appear to be some notion to the idea that it'll take 7 or more years before the Astros make the playoffs again. The distribution of the data would indicate that it will likely take between 8 to 15 years for the rebuilding project to complete; Anything over 16 years is rare.

100 Loss Teams In The Modern Era

Since 1995 there have been 9 teams with 100 loss seasons. As mentioned above 4 of those teams are still trying break the dry streak. The only team to reach double digits in rebuilding are the Pirates who are on the upswing. The Royals have a chance to reach double digit seasons without making the playoffs next season. The median for post 1995 100-loss teams is 5. So turn around has been quicker in the last 16 years.

Conclusion

I'm not going to pretend this is a very serious study because it's not. This is a very basic look at what history can tell us about a rebuilding team, more specifically teams that suffered through a 100-loss season with some amateur statistical work thrown in. I'm not entirely happy with having to cross baseball era's to grab the sufficient sample size needed. Adjustments could be made in regards to league size and schedule. There's also the question whether expansion teams or switching cities should be accounted for.

Overall though I am now satisfied with the statement that it typically takes 7 or more years of rebuilding for a team to become relevant again. For Astro fans that likely means several more years of rebuilding.

Other Observations:

  • 52 teams have had 100 loss seasons before making or never making it back to the postseason
  • 23 teams have made it to the playoffs after only one 100 loss season
  • 29 teams have had multiple 100 loss seasons before making it back to the post season
  • Each of the four teams who have yet to reach it back to the playoffs have had multiple 100-loss seasons.
  • The team with the most 100-loss seasons before getting back to the postseason, Philadelphia Phillies. From 1921 to 1950 they had 12 100-loss seasons.
  • The Philadelphia Athletics were next with 11 100-loss seasons that include two city changes, Kansas City and Oakland.
  • The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Colorado Rockies are the only two franchises without a 100 loss season.
The data I used can be found here.

Comment 35 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Nice work

Hopefully the Astros current rebuild wont take that long. Alot of things would have to go right for the Astros to beat the 7/8 year time frame (they need to get Tampa Bay Devil Rays lucky with both prospects hitting and avoiding injuries) and then increase payroll when the time is right. Being that the Astros market is so big hopefully payroll can increase with the rebuild process and speed up that time frame.

by conroestro on Dec 27, 2011 12:00 PM CST via mobile reply actions  

Interesting analysis, Tim.

In the BBTF comments on the Astros’ ZIPS forecast, the general view was that the 2012 Astros will be one of the worst teams in history, with commenters saying that the 2012 Astros looked similar to the 2003 Tigers, which set the AL record for losses (119). If you want to look for a bright spot, the Tigers won the AL pennant in 2006, only three years later. Another comparison: Randy Smith, Tal Smith’s son, was the GM who was in charge of the declining franchise. Dombrowski replaced him as GM for that record setting 2003 season.

by clack on Dec 27, 2011 12:16 PM CST reply actions  

To be fair, by the way, Dombrowski’s rebuilding of the Tigers involved spending that may not be in the Astros’ future. Dombrowski combined free agent spending with higher spending on the draft, which produced Verlander, Miller, and Maybin. Miller and Maybin were traded for Miguel Cabrera. He also made some great trades, such as reliever Urbina for Placido Polanco. This lopsidedd trade helped cement Ed Wade’s reputation for overvaluing relievers.

by clack on Dec 27, 2011 1:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Im not saying that the Astros wont be bad next year

They probably will, but you have to think at the same time there’s a chance for a good bounce back. The optimist in me says that Myers, Lee, and Happ will all bounce back to respectable, Altuve, Martinez, and Lyles will all improve, and players like Downs and Bogusevic will hover around respectable. Wandy will be Wandy (If/while he’s here), Bud will be Bud, and with unknowns like Lowrie and Abreau, we have some upside.

And then there’s the more pessimistic view that Altuve is going to strike out too much, Myers and Happ will be worse next year than they were this year, Lyles gets torn to shreds, and Bogey hits like he did in the minors last year. Not to mention we trade Wandy for prospects too young to help the ML team and Buds arm finally falls off. Abreau can’t find his control, Lyon continues to hurt more than help the team, and we have no bat in CF.

I prefer the optimistic view. But, anything is possible…

by Its Gonna Happen on Dec 27, 2011 2:20 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

There’s a decent chance Myers could be better this season than last since he ran into bad luck last year, but doubt he touches his 2010 career year again.

I hope that Hap’s late season burst wasn’t another tease, and maybe he will be what he was at the end of the season. Doubt both of those good fortunes happen at the same time though, but you never know.

If Lee did what he did last year then I would be happy with that.

by conroestro on Dec 27, 2011 3:16 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

On the bright side...

Consecutive 100 loss seasons is probably the fastest road back to contending. If we can find at least two impact players each draft for 3 consecutive years, and they all take the same quick path to the big leagues (yes, a lot of luck required on all parts), in 2-3 years we can have a steady stream of impact talent on its way to the club. Taking the top college arm/bat 3 years in a row will give us a lot to look forward to. You can’t tell me you don’t love what the Nationals have right now, and that could be the exact path that we take.

by Its Gonna Happen on Dec 27, 2011 2:32 PM CST via mobile reply actions  

well if you look at the data sheet I provided I don’t think you can clearly say consecutive 100 loss season is the fastest road back to contending. Just looking at the numbers there are more double digit losing seasons for teams with multiple 100 loss season than there are with those teams who only had 1 100 loss season.

The fastest way back to contention is smart moves from the front office. If a team is having multiple 100 loss seasons it means they’re not making very good decisions.

Follow my ramblings on Twitter .

by Timothy De Block on Dec 27, 2011 4:46 PM CST up reply actions  

One of the problems with using the larger data sample is that it covers time periods with different means of acquiring players. IGH’s comment presumes that Number 1 draft picks are the way to return to contention faster, which leads him to believe that consecutive 100 loss seasons will accelerate rebuilding.. (I’m not taking a position on his contention, one way or the other.) However, the amateur draft didn’t exist until l965.. So, all of the pre-65 100 win losers didn’t receive a top draft pick “benefit.” Presumably free agency also provides a means to speed up rebuilding. And weak free agency didn’t exist until 1979, with more comprehensive free agency arising in the mid 1990’s.

by clack on Dec 27, 2011 5:13 PM CST up reply actions  

even if you cut out anything before 1965 teams that had only 1 100 loss season had these numbers for losing seasons: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 7, 7, 8, 12. Median = 4

teams with multiple 100 losing seasons had these numbers for losing seasons: 6, 6, 7, 11, 14, 16, 16, 23. Median = 12.5

Follow my ramblings on Twitter .

by Timothy De Block on Dec 27, 2011 5:24 PM CST up reply actions  

I guess with all of the changes in the draft

And with our new owner and GM, I feel we’re in more of a unique position. In fact, with the new drafting rules and a seemingly more popular philosophy on building teams through the draft, this data is less telling. Baseball is changing and evolving.

Were the teams in the past that lost 100+ games changing their approach as we have? Did they have the resources that we have now to analyze what their problems were? Did they have a GM that knew anything about advanced stats? I think we’re in a different boat than the previous 100+ losers. But then again, everybody knows I have no idea what I’m talking about. ;)

by Its Gonna Happen on Dec 27, 2011 8:47 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

“If a team is having multiple 100 less seasons it means they’re not making very good decisions.”

I think with changing our owner and GM we’re changing our big decision makers. I would have been happier if they had replaced Heck as well just to say they’re going in a completely different direction, but it might not have been necessary. If we lose 100+ again this season I don’t think that will reflect our current/new way of thinking.

by Its Gonna Happen on Dec 27, 2011 9:05 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

Yeah, we haven’t heard a whole lot about Heck and his status. You would think that as a new gm you would want to get your people in there so your all on the same page. Maybe that’s still the plan, or maybe there just isn’t enough time to make that change, or maybe Luhnow has met with Heck and feels comfortable with him as the guy.

by conroestro on Dec 27, 2011 11:28 PM CST up reply actions  

I’d be interested to know how hamstrung Bobby Heck was with the organization. I’d love to see his big board of draft picks throughout the years.

by MadMartygan on Dec 28, 2011 1:14 PM CST up reply actions  

Well any of those possibilities could reflect Heck’s status. It’s also worth noting that it may not be all that easy to bring another scouting director on board at this time of year, if that is Luhnow’s intent. If he wants another team’s executive to make a lateral move, he might have to wait until employment contracts expire. Also, Based on his chat session, Luhnow intends to create a position for an executive who manages both player development and scouting. I have no idea what that means for Heck.

by clack on Dec 28, 2011 1:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Tim, that would lead me to view 4 years as a more typical period than 7 years. The existence of the draft is a pretty big deal in terms of at least providing a mechanism for losing teams to gain ground on winning teams. So, I would lean toward excluding the pre-1965 teams.

by clack on Dec 28, 2011 10:13 AM CST up reply actions  

The median is for all teams post 1965 is 5.5 with a 7 mean. That’s with a sample size of 24 and as I stated above something I am not entirely satisfied with.

Maybe the improvement in communication and sharing of information has accelerated the rebuilding process. With the information available there is hope it will take less than 7 years, but it’s far from a sure thing.

Follow my ramblings on Twitter .

by Timothy De Block on Dec 28, 2011 10:37 AM CST up reply actions  

The 100 loss season

I’m not for sure of the situation that the other teams were in going into there 100 loss seasons, but in the Astros case at least they already started rebuilding two seasons ago. The drafts have been slowly building depth and the trades made the last two years have also sped up the rebuilding process albeit ever so slightly. Maybe that will help the recovery time for rebounding from the franchises worst season last year.

by conroestro on Dec 27, 2011 11:38 PM CST reply actions  

More important to me is how long it will take to get above .500. Of course I want playoffs, but at minimuj I want the team to be competitive.

by Snake Diggity on Dec 28, 2011 9:17 AM CST reply actions  

Win-Goal per Season:
2012: 70
2013: 80
2014: 85
2015+: 90+ (Playoffs)

We will be terrible in 2012, that much is a given. But I think after that, the team should be respectable.

by Snake Diggity on Dec 28, 2011 11:15 AM CST up reply actions  

I would instead recommend you look at draft order

And then look at the timeframe between conductive top 2 picks and the playoffs after 100 loss seasons

This will give you a general idea if being real bad for an extended period helps

JD’s like, "you want some f*&#ing pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, b*#&hes!"- RCCook

LSB: "Oh s#*t, JD. You crazy!"

by laxtonto on Dec 28, 2011 9:19 AM CST via iPhone app reply actions  

The only year in which more than 2 teams had 100 loss seasons was 2002.

Follow my ramblings on Twitter .

by Timothy De Block on Dec 28, 2011 10:25 AM CST up reply actions  

A's trade for more prospects from Red Sox....

Some more news about an Astros’ future division competitor:

Oakland A’s trade outfielder Ryan Sweeney and closer Andrew Bailey for rookie outfielder Josh Reddick and A-level prospects pitcher Raul Alcantera and 1st baseman Miles Head.

From what I saw last year, Reddick looked like a pretty good infielder. The A- level prospects are No. 20 and 23 on Sickels’ list for the Red Sox, but he seems to like them as high ceiling prospects.

This will keep Melancon in the set up role, and should make for a good Red Sox bullpen.

by clack on Dec 28, 2011 4:39 PM CST reply actions  

that should read “outfielder” instead of “infielder” when I mention Reddick the second time

by clack on Dec 28, 2011 4:40 PM CST up reply actions  

I guess Bard is moving to the rotation then. A Melancon Bailey combo should be a pretty good backend of the rotation for the Sox. With the hauls the A’s have been pulling in lately I expected more, but that seems like a reasonable package for their closer. From what i read from A’s fans on Athletics Nation they seem dissappointed.

I take it the A’s dont have to make any 40-man roster moves this time. There starting to have to pass some interesting names through waivers with all these moves.

by conroestro on Dec 28, 2011 9:37 PM CST up reply actions  

It probably was a fair trade for both teams, but it wasn’t as big a haul as the A’s previous trades. I think you are right that A’s fans probably hoped for more. But it’s hard to get a huge return for Bailey due to his history of arm problems. He has pitched something like 40-50 innings per year due to injury. That’s definitely a risk that the Red Sox are taking. And, some of the A’s fans who are OK with the trade feel like his arm could fall off tomorrow.

by clack on Dec 29, 2011 7:36 AM CST up reply actions  

the Senetors became the Rangers in 1972

Unless I missed something I don’t think the article says otherwise.

by lawson3 on Dec 29, 2011 5:14 AM CST via mobile up reply actions  

The Washngton Nationals, in the NL, were formerly the Montreal Expos.

The Washington Senators were an expansion team in 1961 which moved to Texas in 1972. A previous Washington Senators team moved to Minnesota and became the Twins in 1960.

by clack on Dec 29, 2011 7:29 AM CST up reply actions  

rec'd

for making my day.

Follow my ramblings on Twitter .

by Timothy De Block on Dec 29, 2011 7:33 AM CST up reply actions  

That’s outstanding!

by MadMartygan on Dec 29, 2011 3:23 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes they were from Texas

Washington on the Brazos had a team back in the oughts. Now they were called the Senators back then because during that time, Ma and Pa Kettle were the co Governesses of the state, and they banned the use of the word Senator in all Texas Legislation. In the city limits of New Austin, as it was called in that time, Sentors went by the name of ‘suities’. That is because they were the only ones who wore suits that had both a shirt AND pants. So the ones who did not wear pants and were Senators ran to Washington on the Brazos to hold out until Ma and Pa Kettle retired. Well, I do not know about you, but Washington on the Brazos is a boring place. So the pass the time until they kicked the bucket, a term that Fatty Arbuckle came up with by the way, they would play baseball. The problem was that since Ma Kettle was secretly English, she hated baseball and the act of Stealing, since steeling is an immoral activity. So thees Sentors, had to go hide and play their game in Washington DC. But since there were Senators in DC, who did not like these pantless Texas ones, chased them out of the country into Canada.

by Silentjay on Jan 1, 2012 12:23 AM CST up reply actions  

back to respectability

if you do it right, you can get back quick… astros traded for very good prospects….for 2 years… i think they are going to be credible in 2012….maybe real good… at end of 2011 they had good team on field… swept giants… 2 of 3 from phillies…mike h

by Mike HJALM on Dec 30, 2011 10:49 AM CST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the Crawfishboxes, the SBNation blog for the Houston Astros.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Chimp_small
The Importance of George Springer

Recent FanPosts

Small
Oswalt in 2012
Small
Heck and Co. - Your time is up.
Small
Santana and a bold new top 10, etc..
Astros_retro_logo1_small
Lance Berkman with possible torn ACL...
Astros_retro_logo1_small
Quasi update on Lucas Giolito for draft
100_1519_small
Good News
Small
Thinking about where the top 2012 draftees will be ranked for 2013
Astros_small
Most valuable building blocks
Nsapcs13_large_small
Minor League Open Thread

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

TCB Tweets!

    

Current Series

Astros lead the series 1-0

Fri 05/25 WP: Lucas Harrell (4 - 3)
SV: Brett Myers
LP: Clayton Kershaw (4 - 2)
3 - 1 win

Houston Astros
@ Los Angeles Dodgers

Saturday, May 26, 2012, 9:10 PM CDT
Dodger Stadium

Bud Norris vs Chad Billingsley

Mostly clear. Winds blowing out to right field at 5-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 65.

Complete Coverage >

Sun 05/27 3:10 PM CDT

NL Central Standings

W L PCT GB STRK
Cincinnati 25 20 .555 0 Lost 1
St. Louis 25 21 .543 0.5 Lost 2
Houston 22 23 .488 3 Won 4
Pittsburgh 21 24 .466 4 Won 1
Milwaukee 19 26 .422 6 Won 2
Chicago 15 30 .333 10 Lost 10

(updated 5.26.2012 at 6:14 PM CDT)

Yahoo_full_count

Managing Editors

Tcb_icon_small Timothy De Block

Old_school_dome_logo_small David Coleman

Editors

Nsapcs13_large_small clack

H_astros_small Subber10

Astrobritrs2_small AstroB

Small conroestro

Small CRPerry13