Countdown to History: Lowest HR Total

by WalrusMan on Sep 23, 2008 5:31 PM PDT Comment 37 comments

That's right! We're on a History watch right now. Well..not really ancient History, but we could become the team with the lowest HR total since the 1992 Dodgers when they had 74. We will amost certainly become the lowest HR total since the 1995 Phillies when they had 94. Prior to their game tonight, 9/23 they have 91 HR. Extrapolated out, that's 94.5 HR this year. We'll see what happens I guess. Here's the table..

Of coruse those 1994 HR totals are extrapolated. Basically I converted their HR total through however many games they had played and figured out their HR/G. I'm sure the teams wouldn't have reached these in particular but they were clearly above and beyond what the Giants will reach this year.

Just as an aside also, Seems very strange that both the AL and NL HR totals just drop off a cliff both in 1992. There were a few low totals in the NL other years, but nothing so drastic as 72 and 75.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Cool post. If we are going to be bad, we might as well be the best at it.

by rotorueter on Sep 23, 2008 5:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

that’s the spirit!

"ever so cynical yet whimsical giants related signature"

by The Gene Hackman on Sep 23, 2008 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t “extrapolated out” kind of redundant?

Anything to distract me from the powerless Giants.

by kaliber on Sep 23, 2008 7:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know – have you ever tried extrapolating in?

your 2008 SF Giants: this isn’t totally insane, just really stupid

by Lyle on Sep 24, 2008 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I prefer extrapolating in myself

It’s just, you know, cozier.

Scott McClain: Great story, no place on the 2009 Giants.

by EliminateMe on Sep 24, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW, you extrapolated ‘94 to account for the strike, but not ’95, which was also a strike year, if to a much smaller degree. Still, the missing games in ’95 and Florida’s expansion status in ’93 clearly have us looking back to ’92 for our equal in ineptitude, and the Dodgers of ’92 really were a historically horrible offensive team that undermined an exceptionally good pitching staff.

Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!

by Roger on Sep 23, 2008 7:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Damn...

Forgot that.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
How is my adopted son almost twice as old as I am? Nevermind...Go Omar! Warm the Bench!

by WalrusMan on Sep 23, 2008 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

1995 Pirates: 106 1995 Kansas City: 134

by WalrusMan on Sep 24, 2008 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that undermined an exceptionally good pitching staff.

The ‘92 Dodgers only had an ERA+ of 102. Were you thinking about another team, or is there something about that staff that I’m missing?

by Grant on Sep 23, 2008 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oops, guess my memory’s just a little fuzzy. I was actually thinking of the ‘89 team that finished 3rd the year after their improbable World Series run. That team had a 117 ERA+ and still managed to wind up 77-83. (Without a doubt that Dodgers team that won the Series in ’88 was the worst, least talented champion in baseball history. Stupid A’s)

Interestingly the ’92 Dodgers staff posted an ERA+ of 117 the year before and 110 the year after, so that season just seems to have been a wasteland all over for Dodgertown.

Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!

by Roger on Sep 24, 2008 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m pretty sure they won’t finish with 94.5

Fairley odd parent to Wendell

by WTF on Sep 23, 2008 7:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

In pretty sure would you say 94.5% sure?

by paboperfecto on Sep 23, 2008 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

More like 110%

by kaliber on Sep 23, 2008 10:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Reply fail. Again.

by kaliber on Sep 23, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, the team leader in homers is Bengie Molina. Crazy.

There amass been plenty of articles written this spring about the stud shortstop Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum , as well as the fluid young outfielders and thirteen basemen Kevin Frandsen.
comics | cartoons | Nattowear | McFAQ

by Natto on Sep 23, 2008 10:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What's so crazy about that?

CLEANUP HITTER, BEEYOTCH!!!

Scott McClain: Great story, no place on the 2009 Giants.

by EliminateMe on Sep 24, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

During ST I said this team would hit 107

man was I wrong

Giants! Giants! HELP US GOD!

by j14 on Sep 23, 2008 10:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I set the bar at 100, choosing the under. But I only did that because I have 10 fingers.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Sep 23, 2008 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So....

Are you saying that 100 is an important number because we use a base-10 system, or that you were forced to take the under because numbers that can’t be counted on both hands frighten and confuse you?

May I suggest counting your toes as well. Perhaps scoring lines in a stick to tally number of time you’ve exhausted your digits.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 23, 2008 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I was talking about the first thing, but now that you mention it, the 2nd thing sounds right.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Sep 23, 2008 11:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

FAIL

FUCK

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Sep 23, 2008 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Futility in home runs....

But we’re still better than the Padres! So I can live with that while all sh!t stirs down here with the locals in the offseason.

it's always noonan somewhere

by sectionop92 on Sep 24, 2008 12:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1994!?!

THE STONE AGES!

by Lars The Wanderer on Sep 24, 2008 7:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

/bangs rocks and sticks together

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Sep 24, 2008 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

did you know

they had no internets in 1994? How did they shop? What did they get their email on? The radio?

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Sep 24, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lies!

Al Gore invented the internet way before ’94!

by Lars The Wanderer on Sep 24, 2008 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How did they get their porn?

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Sep 24, 2008 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

alt.sex.eunuchs

or was it alt.sex.unix?

Ah USENET.

by bgunn on Sep 24, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

SPEED AND DEFENSE!

No, my Crazy Crab bobblehead is not for sale.

by Kitspool on Sep 24, 2008 9:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

In honor of the historic Fail, I believe Duane Kuiper should give a speech on the merits of “not going deep” after the last game of the season.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

by WilliamVanLandingham on Sep 24, 2008 9:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Kruk will enjoy strapping in with him.

by Natto on Sep 24, 2008 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're saying we are on course beat the Dodgers

that’s good, right?

by Jakespaar on Sep 24, 2008 11:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Best preseason article ever:

Giants’ motto: Without HRs, it’s run, run, run

Moreover, the top third of the lineup can take off now without fear of running the Giants out of a Barry Bonds inning and incurring the wrath of homer-drunk fans.