I don't expect that everyone will be familiar with Simmons' rather arbitrary 'Levels of Losing'. I admit to feeling bizarrely pleased that the Giants made the list at all, having become accustomed to east coasters general lack of awareness when it comes to northern California, well, everything. I guess people care about the Warriors every once in a while. They get angry about Barry Bonds sometimes. I'll give him the Indians and Cubs as being a more miserable group, and Cleveland only because the last WS victory in Giants franchise history came at their expense, in the wake of one of the great regular seasons, supplemented by anguish of being on the heartbreak side of Willie Mays' spectacular catch. Every time I watch that play, I get chills; every time an Indians fan sees it, they throw up in their mouths a little. That must suck. Don't need to justify the Cubs; Steve Goodman has taken care of that for the rest of eternity. I don't follow football closely enough to argue with the other teams he ranks 'ahead' of the Giants. He rates the Giants lowest moment as being Game 6, but Game 7 in 1962 has to rank pretty high up there. Still, that was early in their San Francisco tenure, and there must have been some optimism what with that era's farm system pumping out all stars on a yearly basis. 2002 just hurt. I'd be shocked if anyone is still reading this, but the Giants have an unusual claim when it comes to misery. Has there been another team that at separate points fielded arguably the two best players in its respective sport's history, for the majority of their careers, yet never got a title out of it? I can't think of one.