Most consecutive 100-loss seasons in MLB history

[waltwilliams]

On 7/16/2025 at 2:39 PM, waltwilliams said:

Once again, the White Sox are contending with history, in a negative way. As we all know, there's a good chance that they'll lose 100 games for the third season in a row. This would tie them with four other teams in AL history who lost 100 games three seasons in a row. Only the expansion Washington Senators lost 100 games four seasons in a row in the AL. Here's the notorious consecutive 100-loss seasons in both the AL and NL:

AL
4 Washington Senators 1961-64
3 St.Louis Browns 1910-12
3 Philadelphia A's 1919-21
3 Boston Red Sox 1925-27
3 Toronto Blue Jays 1977-79
3 Kansas City Royals 2004-06

NL
5 Philadelpha Phillies 1938-42
4 Boston Braves 1909-12
4 New York Mets 1962-65
3 Boston Braves 1922-24
3 Pittsburgh Pirates 1952-54

The Sox need at least a 31-34 record in the second half of the season to avoid being on this embarrassing list. Can they do it? Time will tell.

Sadly, bringing back this thread, as the Sox prepare to make history again as one of the few teams to lose 100 games three years in a row. The last team to do this was the 2004-2006 Royals. It would take them seven years after 2006 to get back to .500, and eight years to get back to postseason in 2014, when they reached the World Series.

Hopefully, it doesn't take that long for the Sox.

[Lip Man 1]

1 hour ago, waltwilliams said:

Sadly, bringing back this thread, as the Sox prepare to make history again as one of the few teams to lose 100 games three years in a row. The last team to do this was the 2004-2006 Royals. It would take them seven years after 2006 to get back to .500, and eight years to get back to postseason in 2014, when they reached the World Series.

Hopefully, it doesn't take that long for the Sox.

All depends on when Ishbia takes over.

[nrockway]

On 7/16/2025 at 6:09 PM, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

But can you tell me who has done a better job between Getz and David Stearns?

Yes

[FloydBannister1983]

6 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

All depends on when Ishbia takes over.

I don’t think this is the guarantee of future success that you think it is.  It won’t be easy to undo the organizational rot and the widespread perception of this organization just by changing ownership.  They will have to revamp the entire organization, correctly.  If successful, they will still have to undo the league wide view of the organization.

[southsider2k5]

10 hours ago, FloydBannister1983 said:

I don’t think this is the guarantee of future success that you think it is.  It won’t be easy to undo the organizational rot and the widespread perception of this organization just by changing ownership.  They will have to revamp the entire organization, correctly.  If successful, they will still have to undo the league wide view of the organization.

It's all about finding great people to do these jobs AND THEN LETTING THEM DO THEM!

[SCCWS]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It's all about finding great people to do these jobs AND THEN LETTING THEM DO THEM!

THEN LETTING THEM DO THEM! I would add with capital to "do" them.  If the bottom line is first "corporate profit" the ideally that phrase does not mean anything

[Lip Man 1]

13 hours ago, FloydBannister1983 said:

I don’t think this is the guarantee of future success that you think it is.  It won’t be easy to undo the organizational rot and the widespread perception of this organization just by changing ownership.  They will have to revamp the entire organization, correctly.  If successful, they will still have to undo the league wide view of the organization.

No guarantees at all, just the reality of how much worse can Ishbia be than what we've been seeing basically since 2007.

[FloydBannister1983]

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

No guarantees at all, just the reality of how much worse can Ishbia be than what we've been seeing basically since 1986.

 

Fixed it for you.

Edited September 19 by FloydBannister1983

[The Mighty Mite]

On 9/18/2025 at 3:51 PM, waltwilliams said:

Sadly, bringing back this thread, as the Sox prepare to make history again as one of the few teams to lose 100 games three years in a row. The last team to do this was the 2004-2006 Royals. It would take them seven years after 2006 to get back to .500, and eight years to get back to postseason in 2014, when they reached the World Series.

Hopefully, it doesn't take that long for the Sox.

Don’t forget who the owner is.

[Ducksnort]

On 7/16/2025 at 3:39 PM, waltwilliams said:

Once again, the White Sox are contending with history, in a negative way. As we all know, there's a good chance that they'll lose 100 games for the third season in a row. This would tie them with five other teams in AL history who lost 100 games three seasons in a row. Only the expansion Washington Senators lost 100 games four seasons in a row in the AL. Here's the notorious consecutive 100-loss seasons in both the AL and NL:

AL
4 Washington Senators 1961-64
3 St.Louis Browns 1910-12
3 Philadelphia A's 1919-21
3 Boston Red Sox 1925-27
3 Toronto Blue Jays 1977-79
3 Kansas City Royals 2004-06

NL
5 Philadelpha Phillies 1938-42
4 Boston Braves 1909-12
4 New York Mets 1962-65
3 Boston Braves 1922-24
3 Pittsburgh Pirates 1952-54

The Sox need at least a 31-34 record in the second half of the season to avoid being on this embarrassing list. Can they do it? Time will tell.

Small potatoes but you forgot the 2011-2013 astros

[Lip Man 1]

2 hours ago, FloydBannister1983 said:

 

Fixed it for you.

Considering the Sox had winning seasons from 1990-1994 and then did not have a losing season from 2000-2006 I think my starting point of 2007 is more accurate. 

[waltwilliams]

51 minutes ago, Ducksnort said:

Small potatoes but you forgot the 2011-2013 astros

You're right! I'll fix the original post. They're a good role model for the Sox -- it only took them two years to turn things around and get back in the playoffs, and they've been a perennial contender ever since (cheating notwithstanding).

Edited September 19 by waltwilliams

[waltwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Considering the Sox had winning seasons from 1990-1994 and then did not have a losing season from 2000-2006 I think my starting point of 2007 is more accurate. 

I'd say 2013, since they had some fun, good teams in 2008, 2010 and 2012. The 2008 team was an offensive juggernaut -- and of course, there was the "Blackout Game". Should've have gotten in the playoffs in 2012, but they collapsed in the last few weeks. And they had that mid-summer 11 game winning streak in 2010 and again should have been a post-season team, but they couldn't beat the Twins.

[Lip Man 1]

42 minutes ago, waltwilliams said:

I'd say 2013, since they had some fun, good teams in 2008, 2010 and 2012. The 2008 team was an offensive juggernaut -- and of course, there was the "Blackout Game". Should've have gotten in the playoffs in 2012, but they collapsed in the last few weeks. And they had that mid-summer 11 game winning streak in 2010 and again should have been a post-season team, but they couldn't beat the Twins.

Injuries (so what else is new?) basically gutted and crippled the bullpen down the stretch in 2010.

[champagne030]

1 hour ago, waltwilliams said:

You're right! I'll fix the original post. They're a good role model for the Sox -- it only took them two years to turn things around and get back in the playoffs, and they've been a perennial contender ever since (cheating notwithstanding).

The Astros broke the tanking method.  They picked #1 from 2012-2014, #2 in 2015 and had #5 in 2015 b/c of Aiken.  Not possible now....Getz had the worst record ever and couldn't draft higher than 10.

[Lip Man 1]

6 minutes ago, champagne030 said:

The Astros broke the tanking method.  They picked #1 from 2012-2014, #2 in 2015 and had #5 in 2015 b/c of Aiken.  Not possible now....Getz had the worst record ever and couldn't draft higher than 10.

Typical White Sox "luck" isn't it?

[FloydBannister1983]

2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Considering the Sox had winning seasons from 1990-1994 and then did not have a losing season from 2000-2006 I think my starting point of 2007 is more accurate. 

Nah.  
 

You’re forgetting the Hawk Harrelson experiment.  Turning one of the greatest catchers of all time into a left fielder and then telling him to get lost on the road.  That they had a few winning seasons doesn’t absolve them of running a crappy organization that entire time.

[chitownsportsfan]

36 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Typical White Sox "luck" isn't it?

I'm not absolving JR of jack crap but the Sox have been hurt considerably by structural changes in MLB: namely the competitive balance picks and the draft changes. You have every other team in the division getting additional picks and the Sox for all intents and purposes operate as a small market team, MLB just doesn't qualify them as one given the current rules.

[Lip Man 1]

3 hours ago, FloydBannister1983 said:

Nah.  
 

You’re forgetting the Hawk Harrelson experiment.  Turning one of the greatest catchers of all time into a left fielder and then telling him to get lost on the road.  That they had a few winning seasons doesn’t absolve them of running a crappy organization that entire time.

Not forgetting Hawk at all, in fact I wrote the chapter on his year in charge for Dr. Fletcher's next book on the Sox.

If you really want to get to the root of JR's change in attitude it was in the off season after they won in 1983 where he was quoted as saying he didn't realize how much winning "costs" because of players wanting raises et al. That's when, if you believe former commissioner Fay Vincent from his book, JR and Bud Selig began to plot the collusion tactics that cost MLB dearly after three arbitrators ruled against them and ordered damages paid to the players (including Fisk) who were impacted.  

[The Mighty Mite]

What JR has done to the White Sox franchise in his 44 years of ownership is despicable, it’s amazing that there are any Sox fans left at all because of this man, what’s more amazing is that the Sox will draw close to 1.5 million this season. 

[Ducksnort]

6 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said:

What JR has done to the White Sox franchise in his 44 years of ownership is despicable, it’s amazing that there are any Sox fans left at all because of this man, what’s more amazing is that the Sox will draw close to 1.5 million this season. 

While I agree with you about Jerry, to your last point, have you been to the park this season? They've done a great job this year with making it entertaining at the ballpark aside from the product on the field. And the product on the field has even been entertaining at times. Way more than last year anyway.

[The Mighty Mite]

20 minutes ago, Ducksnort said:

While I agree with you about Jerry, to your last point, have you been to the park this season? They've done a great job this year with making it entertaining at the ballpark aside from the product on the field. And the product on the field has even been entertaining at times. Way more than last year anyway.

Don’t get to many games, commute is 1,300 miles. We do take in games when the Sox play the Rays at the Trop, 90 miles door to door. I have watched just about every game this year except when they’re out west, you are correct, they have been very entertaining and these young guys should only get better and I think it would be a crime if they don’t bring in some quality free agents this off season.

Edited September 21 by The Mighty Mite

[77 Hitmen]

8 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said:

What JR has done to the White Sox franchise in his 44 years of ownership is despicable, it’s amazing that there are any Sox fans left at all because of this man, what’s more amazing is that the Sox will draw close to 1.5 million this season. 

Those of us around long enough know that he's been a PR disaster almost from the get-go.  He's been alienating fans since 1982 and his late partner Eddie Einhorn was just as bad if not worse.  There was a brief respite in 2005 before the franchise has gone into the ditch over the last 18 or so years culminating in last year's all-time record loss total.   Disgraceful.

[Lip Man 1]

3 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said:

Don’t get to many games, commute is 1,300 miles. We do take in games when the Sox play the Rays at the Trop, 90 miles door to door. I have watched just about every game this year except when they’re out west, you are correct, they have been very entertaining and these young guys should only get better and I think it would be a crime if they don’t bring in some quality free agents this off season.

Get ready to call in Sgt. Friday because they aren't signing anybody worth a damn. 

[WhiteSox2023]

14 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said:

Don’t get to many games, commute is 1,300 miles. We do take in games when the Sox play the Rays at the Trop, 90 miles door to door. I have watched just about every game this year except when they’re out west, you are correct, they have been very entertaining and these young guys should only get better and I think it would be a crime if they don’t bring in some quality free agents this off season.

They aren’t.  Look at the roster.  It’s pretty much set.  Your starting outfield is here already — Benintendi, Robert, and Tauchman.  The infield is here as well.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Sosa is moved to 1B full-time.  Maybe another Martin Perez type starter and of course Getz’s favorite — more bad reliever acquisitions.

Edited September 21 by WhiteSox2023