That is very cool data, actually

Sort of confirms that ineptness, intentional or unintentional, isn't rewarded with "another chance". 

I was a bit skeptical, but was only able to find one more (fairly obvious) example.

Alan Trammell's debut as a manager was 2003.
Detroit shattered the all time loss record, going a ridiculous 43-119.
His next season he managed 72 wins, which is only 115 cumulative.
They brought him back for yet one more season, where he only won 71, or 186 cumulative. 
He did not return to manage the 2006 squad.

I believe GS was talking about the 4 season total.   I know Leyland with Pitt would have missed a two season win total and I wouldn't be shocked if some of the guys that followed him did the same.

No I was trying to be exhaustive. I don't know how I missed the worst team in history.

Thanks Phil.

I thought Leyland would have missed it also, but his worst was 64, in his first season. He won 53 & 58 in 94 & 95, but those were shortened seasons.

There was one other guy, Tony Muser of the KC Royals 1998-2001. He only won 278 over 4 seasons, (72/136/213/278)
but in two of those seasons they only played 161, so I didn't count him, as he could have theoretically won those two rainouts and hit 280.

In any case he was let go early in the 2002 season after starting 8-15.

Well, I'll still go with Pitt.  John Russell 119 in '09-'10.   But, suprisingly, despite 19 consecutive losing seasons, he looks like the only one during that period.

Then again, he wasn't brought back in '11 so the point stands. 

To really compare, it would be better to look at (especially in modern times), how long the GM's tenure was in the midst of the losing.  In the case above, not too many field managers would have had good success with those rosters.

We're both, which doesn't happen much in MLB.

Thus, I think this is the true comparison. The manager is the first casualty.

I've been skimming this thread, so if I am repeating an idea I apologize.

Why not allow private worlds to set a lower cap on scouting if they do desire? This would allow each world to find a desirable balance between maximum attainable certainty and inherent uncertainty as they so choose.

Is it possible a scouting cap in combination with a win requirement could help to keep a league competitive?

You can see from my record that I haven't played in a lot of different worlds. However, I will recommend that the most balanced, competitive world I played in is the only one which had a hard and fast, no exceptions, graduated Minimum Win Requirement.

Now the fact is that I eventually left that world when my team aged out and my attempts to keep up with the MWR failed. It happened to many owners better than me. However. many of them returned to the league when a slot became available because they liked the gameplay.

My main takeaway from the experience is that the MWR has a cascade effect, not just discouraging tanking.

Because you can't just throw away/sleepwalk through a season, an owner has to be aware of where he stands with his ongoing MWR status - an extra level of engagement.
Because your team must be minimally competitive, most owners are engaged in Free Agency. It was the only world I was in where the entire FA market was tapped out. The knock on effects: 1/ Players actually got what they demanded. 2/ Owners spent to the cap, which cut out hoarding for IFAs. 3/ Owners had to work harder on budgeting because of this. 4/ No one team could walk away with a handful of Type As and rebuild on the fly, you were competing for almost every single Type A and B. 5/ Because of this competition an owner had to be more strategic with FA bids. Hold out for the big fish? Or sign the second best player while someone else was going after the number one?

That world was a completely different experience. But as I now always say, the key to enjoying the gameplay is to be in a world with like minded owners who will agree and adhere to the rules. Even in that world there were ongoing whiners who wanted something changed to benefit themselves alone.

That's interesting. What were the nature of the changes that those who wanted exclusive benefits sought?