Sorry baby
We call it like we see it in Chicago
All right then - the White Sox are bad.
Not quite as bad as last year's edition - at their current pace, they'd end up something like 50-112. It's still awful. I have heard people grumbling about a Blue Jays team that won 91 games in a single season. These White Sox are going to need two seasons to match them. If they can.
Has any team ever lost 233 games in a two year span? Has anyone even come close?
We know no one's lost 121 games since the 1899 Cleveland Spiders went 20-134, but here's the thing - there aren't that many teams that have lost 112 games in a single season.
Well, the Detroit Tigers have, twice in fact (2003 and 2019) in 2002-03 the Tigers lost 106 and 119 games. That's not 233 losses, but it's pretty close.
The Baltimore Orioles were also comprehensively terrible just a few years ago, losing 115 games in 2018 and 108 the following year. The Orioles of recent vintage have actually overtaken the Phillies as the franchise that has had the most 90 loss seasons (the Orioles now lead, 41 to 40). Even so, they've never been as bad as these White Sox promise to be.
How about the A's? They lost 112 games themselves just two years ago, and back in the Days of Yore they they were quite a bit worse than that. More than a century ago, Connie Mack couldn't afford to pay his players so he sold them to other teams. The A's lost 109 times in 1915 and 117 times the following year. That's not 233 losses either, but it was probably even worse. With the shorter schedule, they went 79-226 over the two years. That's .259 ball and that's quite a bit worse than the .280 clip of the 2024-25 White Sox.
What about the Mets, famous and adored almost on account of their legendary badness? But after losing 120 games in their first season, they managed to lose just 111 in Year Two. They went 91-231 (.282) over those first two seasons - a fraction better than these White Sox! - and that is indeed the modern bar that the White Sox will either crawl over. Or stumble upon, however it works out.
It gets more difficult to find teams that lost this many games as we go back beyond those Mets, and the schedule shortens to 154 games.
The Pittsburgh Pirates of the early 1950s were notoriously terrible - they bottomed out at 42-112 in 1952, with 92-216 their worst two year total. Playing .299 ball for two years is grotesque and awful, but still not as bad as these White Sox. (I think we can safely ignore the 23-113 mark they posted in 1890, before they were the Pirates, back when Allegheny was still separate from Pittsburgh.)
The Boston Braves seemed to be inching their way to respectability in the early 1920s - then quite out of the blue they went 38-115 in 1935. Well, signing fat 40 year old sluggers is seldom a winning strategy. But that awful season isn't even part of the Braves worst two year period, which bottoms out with their 96-208 mark in 1911-12.
The Washington Senators (first in war, first in peace, last in the American League) went 38-113 back in 1904, when Walter Johnson was just a 16 year old Kansas farm boy. It's part of their worst two year run, as they went 81- 207 in 1903-04, and their .281 winning percentage is actually a shade worse than that of the 1962-63 Mets. But still better than these White Sox.
And that's it - none of the other twenty-two franchises have ever lost 112 games in a season. It's slightly interesting that this List of the Inept is mostly populated by proud, old franchises fallen on very tough times. The Mets are the only team here that's part of the post 1960s expansion eras, although the 2025 Colorado Rockies look determined to join them.
And now I'm reeling in horror at the thought of what I've done. Does this have Reverse Jinx written all over it? Have I unwittingly set the table for a sweep by the visitors this weekend?
Oh, that way madness lies. Let me shun that.
For one thing, the White Sox really shouldn't be this bad. Okay, no one should be this bad - but the thing that leaps out when you look at their 2025 season is their uncanny knack at losing the close games. The White Sox have gone 4-20 in one-run games, and I promise you, there's a lot of Simple Bad Luck involved when that happens to your team.
Matchups
Fri 20 June - Martin (2-7, 3.79) vs Turnbull (1-0, 2.08)
Sat 21 June - Civale (1-3, 4.67) vs Berrios (2-3, 3.81)
Sun 22 June - S.Guy (?-?, ?.??) vs Bassitt (7-3, 3.75)
We call it like we see it in Chicago
All right then - the White Sox are bad.
Not quite as bad as last year's edition - at their current pace, they'd end up something like 50-112. It's still awful. I have heard people grumbling about a Blue Jays team that won 91 games in a single season. These White Sox are going to need two seasons to match them. If they can.
Has any team ever lost 233 games in a two year span? Has anyone even come close?
We know no one's lost 121 games since the 1899 Cleveland Spiders went 20-134, but here's the thing - there aren't that many teams that have lost 112 games in a single season.
Well, the Detroit Tigers have, twice in fact (2003 and 2019) in 2002-03 the Tigers lost 106 and 119 games. That's not 233 losses, but it's pretty close.
The Baltimore Orioles were also comprehensively terrible just a few years ago, losing 115 games in 2018 and 108 the following year. The Orioles of recent vintage have actually overtaken the Phillies as the franchise that has had the most 90 loss seasons (the Orioles now lead, 41 to 40). Even so, they've never been as bad as these White Sox promise to be.
How about the A's? They lost 112 games themselves just two years ago, and back in the Days of Yore they they were quite a bit worse than that. More than a century ago, Connie Mack couldn't afford to pay his players so he sold them to other teams. The A's lost 109 times in 1915 and 117 times the following year. That's not 233 losses either, but it was probably even worse. With the shorter schedule, they went 79-226 over the two years. That's .259 ball and that's quite a bit worse than the .280 clip of the 2024-25 White Sox.
What about the Mets, famous and adored almost on account of their legendary badness? But after losing 120 games in their first season, they managed to lose just 111 in Year Two. They went 91-231 (.282) over those first two seasons - a fraction better than these White Sox! - and that is indeed the modern bar that the White Sox will either crawl over. Or stumble upon, however it works out.
It gets more difficult to find teams that lost this many games as we go back beyond those Mets, and the schedule shortens to 154 games.
The Pittsburgh Pirates of the early 1950s were notoriously terrible - they bottomed out at 42-112 in 1952, with 92-216 their worst two year total. Playing .299 ball for two years is grotesque and awful, but still not as bad as these White Sox. (I think we can safely ignore the 23-113 mark they posted in 1890, before they were the Pirates, back when Allegheny was still separate from Pittsburgh.)
The Boston Braves seemed to be inching their way to respectability in the early 1920s - then quite out of the blue they went 38-115 in 1935. Well, signing fat 40 year old sluggers is seldom a winning strategy. But that awful season isn't even part of the Braves worst two year period, which bottoms out with their 96-208 mark in 1911-12.
The Washington Senators (first in war, first in peace, last in the American League) went 38-113 back in 1904, when Walter Johnson was just a 16 year old Kansas farm boy. It's part of their worst two year run, as they went 81- 207 in 1903-04, and their .281 winning percentage is actually a shade worse than that of the 1962-63 Mets. But still better than these White Sox.
And that's it - none of the other twenty-two franchises have ever lost 112 games in a season. It's slightly interesting that this List of the Inept is mostly populated by proud, old franchises fallen on very tough times. The Mets are the only team here that's part of the post 1960s expansion eras, although the 2025 Colorado Rockies look determined to join them.
And now I'm reeling in horror at the thought of what I've done. Does this have Reverse Jinx written all over it? Have I unwittingly set the table for a sweep by the visitors this weekend?
Oh, that way madness lies. Let me shun that.
For one thing, the White Sox really shouldn't be this bad. Okay, no one should be this bad - but the thing that leaps out when you look at their 2025 season is their uncanny knack at losing the close games. The White Sox have gone 4-20 in one-run games, and I promise you, there's a lot of Simple Bad Luck involved when that happens to your team.
Matchups
Fri 20 June - Martin (2-7, 3.79) vs Turnbull (1-0, 2.08)
Sat 21 June - Civale (1-3, 4.67) vs Berrios (2-3, 3.81)
Sun 22 June - S.Guy (?-?, ?.??) vs Bassitt (7-3, 3.75)
