Newslurp

<< Stories

The Cipher, with the White Sox and Megalopolis

Defector Media <yourpals-donotreply@defector.com>

September 30, 8:03 pm

Hi gang, and thanks for coming to The Cipher. Let's do it.

-Lauren
‘Mr. McMahon’ Is An Incomplete Portrait Of Wrestling’s Reprehensible Kingpin
Shohei Ohtani Ends His Season Dismantling The Entire Concept Of The Decimal System
Kathryn surveys the stats at the end of an unprecedented season for the slugger.
Clippers Fans, And Only Clippers Fans, Can Now Buy Alcohol At 3:17 In The Morning In California
Two Things We Liked On The Internet Today:
The White Sox Could Be Worse
Okay, let's clear this up once and for all because words matter.

The worst baseball team in history is not the 2024 Chicago White Sox, and they should not be celebrated as such. They failed at the end by winning five of their last six games, the cowardly swine, and created the question, "So you actually could have been better than this if you gave a damn, is that what you're saying?"

No, the worst team in baseball history is still the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, because the phrase "in history" does not delineate by "that's too old," or "that wasn't baseball back then." It was. Period.

In fact, even that's wrong. The worst baseball team in history by winning percentage, which is how baseball officially measures this, is the 1875 Baltimore Marylands, who went 0-6 and were outscored 153-26 before dropping their tools and returning to the crab boats. And since we are also including Negro League teams in major league record books now, we mustn't forget the 1933 Cleveland Giants, who lost one six-inning game, 14-9, and quit on the spot despite being managed by a guy named Bingo DeMoss.

But let's say we want to use the cutoff of 1901, when the American League joined the National League as the preeminent white-players-only league. In that case, the worst baseball team in history is in fact still the 1916 Philadelphia A's, who went 36-117 for a winning percentage of .235. In fact, the White Sox have a higher percentage (.252) than not only the 1962 Mets (40-120, .250) but also those A's and the 1935 Boston Braves (38-115, .238).

What the White Sox accomplished is the more arcane record for the most losses ever, but because that's a matter of more opportunities, we cannot give them the title "worst ever" without context. And who doesn't hate context? This is not just a matter of pedantry, either. They didn't finish the job, is the point. They had everything (except the Spiders) in their sights, and all they had to do was what they'd done all year—fail horrifically. That's what the measurement "worst team in baseball history" is all about. Consistency.

The only game of the last six they had any right to win was the Tigers' hangover game last Saturday. They should have been swept by the Angels, not the other way around. They should laid down like the curs they have been on Sunday and lost in 97 minutes so they could get home faster. Yes, they were embarrassingly bad, but they had a chance to be epochal and declined the opportunity, the sniveling hyenas.

But let's not end this glorious season on a downer. They could conceivably be worse next year; three more losses would put them past the '16 A's and make the claim that they are the worst non-Negro League team since the start of the 20th century. It's a little wordy for a souvenir garment, but if they apply themselves for the entire season instead of quitting in Week 27, they could sell swag for the 2026 season that reads with justifiable pride, "Worse Than The Worst." It still won't be historically accurate, but to do that, they'd have to play the last half of the season away from home because nobody will pay to watch them, and then fold at the end of the year. I mean, there's commitment to the bit, and then there's just ripping off someone else's idea.

-Ray Ratto

Photo: Nic Antaya/Getty Images
Some Movies To Watch Instead Of Megalopolis
I saw Megalopolis on Friday in perhaps the only theater in the country that was actually selling out screenings. It had some flair, and it grew on me from an extremely boring start, but I found it pretty empty at its core, dumb in a self-serious way, and hindered by Coppola's sexism and rich-guy detachment. I'm kind of baffled, in all honesty, by the people who are calling it mind-blowing or unforgettable or all that unique. It played, to me, like Netflix sci-fi. It was almost kind of sad that Coppola thought this was profound, and for as much as he's being romanticized for funding the movie himself, it feels more like a vain, wealthy man bought himself an expensive toy rather than a genius director crafting a personal statement from far outside the corporate mainstream.

Since seeing Megalopolis, I've been trying to think up directorially overambitious commercial flops that far surpassed this one. Here are a few:

  • Babylon
  • Starship Troopers
  • Showgirls
  • The Hudsucker Proxy
  • Southland Tales
  • Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
  • Inherent Vice
Honorable Mentions That Don't Quite Fit: Tron, After Hours, Gremlins 2

-Lauren
Copyright © 2024 Defector Media LLC, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via Defector Media.

Our mailing address is:
Defector Media
147 Prince Street, PR3/19
Brooklyn, NY 11201