Worst Captain in Star Trek

[Starflight]

There probably actually is an amusing argument to be made that Kirk is uniquely bad as a captain if TOS is taken literally rather than in the mythic/theatrical spirit in which it's intended. Loses a crewmember every five seconds then laughs about it, almost loses the ship every other week, loses a communicator on a pre-warp planet and brushes it off with a joke...

Then again, Tracey still wins. Truly unbelievable man, there is simply nobody like him.

 

[XCV330]

Actually, the survival rate under Archer was much better than most of the captains.

Archer didn't lose a single crewman until "ANOMALY", second episode of season 3. That means it took until the 54th episode before a death of one of his people. And on a larger mission like the Xindi one, you would expect casualties to occur.


Kirk? He's the reason 'redshirt' is a trope.

Picard? Oddly enough, more people died on the ship than on all away teams combined. ("Heart of Glory", "Where Silence Has Lease", "Q Who", 'The High Ground", "The Best of Both Worlds", "In Theory"... the list goes on.)

Janeway? Season 2 alone had a bunch, never mind the other seasons. (Or the initial hurl into the Delta Quadrant.)

This has been discussed before but by the end of TATV, Archer had lost about 29 persons, well over 1/3rd of his crew. No one sane would have wanted to step onboard that widowmaker.

 

[Frostscape One]

This has been discussed before but by the end of TATV, Archer had lost about 29 persons, well over 1/3rd of his crew. No one sane would have wanted to step onboard that widowmaker.

And nearly all of Archer's losses were the Xindi mission, season 3... a mission expected to have a high casualty rate. It was, for all intents and purposes, a wartime mission.

Kirk and Picard? Those were all during peacetime. No sane person would voluntarily want to step on board either of those commands.

 

[XCV330]

And nearly all of Archer's losses were the Xindi mission, season 3... a mission expected to have a high casualty rate. It was, for all intents and purposes, a wartime mission.

Kirk and Picard? Those were all during peacetime. No sane person would voluntarily want to step on board either of those commands.

Picard's losses were relatively low. Especially for a ship being flown into the unknown with civillians and children on board. WHY Starfleet thought it would be great to put nurseries and kindergartens in an active warship.. well that's just Late Stage Roddenberry stuff.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

There probably actually is an amusing argument to be made that Kirk is uniquely bad as a captain if TOS is taken literally rather than in the mythic/theatrical spirit in which it's intended. Loses a crewmember every five seconds then laughs about it, almost loses the ship every other week, loses a communicator on a pre-warp planet and brushes it off with a joke...

Then again, Tracey still wins. Truly unbelievable man, there is simply nobody like him.

Indeed. The sensible chuckle that started to occur was annoying. Contrast that with the end of Balance of Terror and Kirk comes across far better.

 

[Frostscape One]

Picard's losses were relatively low. Especially for a ship being flown into the unknown with civillians and children on board. WHY Starfleet thought it would be great to put nurseries and kindergartens in an active warship.. well that's just Late Stage Roddenberry stuff.

If you want to do it by percentage, okay. That doesn't mean he was safe. Picard lost more people in just the episodes I named than Archer did in four full seasons.


I do agree with you that having kids on a starship is a terrible idea.

But considering how often Picard stayed within Federation space... was he really flying into the unknown as much as some think?

 

[DonIago]

Esteban gets portrayed as a bad captain, but his caution was warranted. If anything, he wasn't cautious enough. He was sent to the Genesis planet, where Starfleet knew fully well there would be other interested parties, in a tiny barely armed ship.

Hmm. Is it possible Starfleet Command wasn't aware that the Klingons had BoPs with cloaks (at that point in time), or that the cloak used by this BoP was newer tech and hence Grissom couldn't have reasonably anticipated the danger they were in? Just how close is the Mutara Sector to Klingon space anyhow?

 

[Frostscape One]

Sulu was aware of a typical crew compliment of a Bird of Prey when Kirk asked, and Sulu did correctly estimate the ripple effect was that ship.

So Starfleet is at least aware of it.

 

[DonIago]

Sulu was aware of a typical crew compliment of a Bird of Prey when Kirk asked, and Sulu did correctly estimate the ripple effect was that ship.

So Starfleet is at least aware of it.

TBF, if you see something like that on the viewscreen, "cloaked ship" isn't exactly a big leap...

I wasn't positing that the class of ship, or even necessarily that kind of cloaking device, was new, but perhaps that kind of cloaking device on that class of ship was new. Though it could certainly also be that that class of ship was new and that Sulu was somewhat guesstimating, or that they'd never seen a BoP with a cloaking device, or that kind of cloaking device.

 

[Frostscape One]

TBF, if you see something like that on the viewscreen, "cloaked ship" isn't exactly a big leap...

I wasn't positing that the class of ship, or even necessarily that kind of cloaking device, was new, but perhaps that kind of cloaking device on that class of ship was new. Though it could certainly also be that that class of ship was new and that Sulu was somewhat guesstimating, or that they'd never seen a BoP with a cloaking device, or that kind of cloaking device.

Well, cloaks have been shown to improve over the centuries. (Which explains the Suliban and the Romulan minefield in "MINEFIELD"... they were not fully cloaked because using a different scanner was all they needed to navigate it.)

I buy it that the cloak Kruge had could have been a newer one.

And only 3 movies later, a cloaked ship that can fire... which still could be detected by the gas it leaves. So some improvement, but not enough. (Which explains why they were never seen again... the Klingons just couldn't figure out how to prevent that one weakness.)


I'm not one who thought Estaban was a bad captain. Just a very unlucky one. (And despite a 'lucky shot', the Klingon gunner wasn't very lucky, either.)

 

[Henoch]

Picard's losses were relatively low.

Every time the Enterprise D exploded in "Cause and Effect", Picard accounted for ~1000 on his ship (not counting the few hundred on the Bozeman), repeat 74 times equals almost 74,000 crew deaths for Picard.

 

[Nude Colonel Stuart]

Harriman gets painted with the same bad brush Jellico is. Both should not be judged by their one appearance where the story demands they not be liked or steal the spotlight.

Stories should stick to telling, not demanding. The latter only reduces thoughtful nuanced drama. When stories demand, we get saddled with outcomes never in doubt....like most WALKER TEXAS RANGER episodes or Steven Seagal films.

Kirk? He's the reason 'redshirt' is a trope.

Picard? Oddly enough, more people died on the ship than on all away teams combined. ("Heart of Glory", "Where Silence Has Lease", "Q Who", 'The High Ground", "The Best of Both Worlds", "In Theory"... the list goes on.)

Perhaps the majority of Picard's casualties croaked off camera. As for TOS' Kirk's, all but ten bought it in front of our eyes. A small fraction of them got better..........but only on a regular basis. (Wink/stomach poke)

Then again, Tracey still wins. Truly unbelievable man, there is simply nobody like him.

He won't be outfought, moderated or tamed. To him, the Shat is shit. Perhaps to a handful of others in turn. Awesome, RT, totally awesome!

 

[DonIago]

"My god; the man was a monster!!!"

 

[Nude Colonel Stuart]

Every time the Enterprise D exploded in "Cause and Effect", Picard accounted for ~1000 on his ship (not counting the few hundred on the Bozeman), repeat 74 times equals almost 74,000 crew deaths for Picard.

An extremely binary viewpoint, I should say. Besides, the thousand-plus victims repeatedly got better for the next rounds, so no harm, no foul.

 

[Frostscape One]

Every time the Enterprise D exploded in "Cause and Effect", Picard accounted for ~1000 on his ship (not counting the few hundred on the Bozeman), repeat 74 times equals almost 74,000 crew deaths for Picard.

I think 74 times is a bit off. Their chronometers were off by about 17 days, and since the events that happened started the "night before" with the log and the poker game, it's probably closer to 34 times. A night before... we can be generous and say 12 hours between the log entry and them exploding (say, the game starts at 8 p.m. and they blow up at 8 a.m.), so that's twice a day. 17 × 2 = 34 times.

I still agree with your point, though... Picard lost 100% of his crew at least 34 times.

Oh, and by the way... however many people he lost on the Stargazer. At least when Kirk lost his ship, none of his crew were aboard her.

And Janeway? "DEADLOCK", "RELATIVITY"... she's also lost her entire crew more than once. Not exactly the sultan of safety, either.

 

[Henoch]

I think 74 times is a bit off. Their chronometers were off by about 17 days

Oops, you are right, I misread the transcript:

PICARD: Mister Worf, end Red alert. And try to access a Federation time base beacon. Let's see if we can find out how long we've been in this causality loop.​

WORF: Time base confirms our chronometers are off by seventeen point four days.​

Correct Picard's death rate to only 17,000.

 

[Turtletrekker]

But are the deaths attributable to Picard or to Bateman? Who would the space cops and the space insurance companies find at fault?

 

[Frostscape One]

But are the deaths attributable to Picard or to Bateman? Who would the space cops and the space insurance companies find at fault?

Picard. He ordered the tractor beam to be used, which impacted the nacelle. Riker's suggestion was the way to actively move the Enterprise herself out of the way.