PDA

View Full Version : TSN Power Rankings


gogosoxgogo
01-30-2003, 07:43 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/baseball/poll/

1. Twins Biggest upside among LCS entrants.
14. White Sox Up-the-middle players a concern.16. Cubs Baker will be challenged like never before.25. Indians Roster interchangeable with Class AAA affiliate's.28. Royals When will Beltran be traded?30. Tigers Trammell and Gibson are headed for a rude awakening.

CHISOXFAN13
01-30-2003, 07:45 PM
It's laughable to me because the way TSN looks at it, the Twins will probably win 95-100 games as the No. 1 team. At 14, I guess that would make the Sox a .500 club.


PLEASE.

TSN joins SI's prognosticators as the dumbest on the planet with this.

Bmr31
01-30-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
It's laughable to me because the way TSN looks at it, the Twins will probably win 95-100 games as the No. 1 team. At 14, I guess that would make the Sox a .500 club.


PLEASE.

TSN joins SI's prognosticators as the dumbest on the planet with this.

Really? Who would you say is better than the Twins? I may not rate them #1, but theyd be top 5.

gogosoxgogo
01-30-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Really? Who would you say is better than the Twins? I may not rate them #1, but theyd be top 5.

Yankees, A's, Braves, more

Daver
01-30-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Really? Who would you say is better than the Twins? I may not rate them #1, but theyd be top 5.

Still got that Jeter poster hanging on your door? :redneck

Bmr31
01-30-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Yankees, A's, Braves, more

HUH? The braves are worse than last season, the yanks are old, and the A's lost to the twins last season.

Bmr31
01-30-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by daver
Still got that Jeter poster hanging on your door? :redneck

Nah, i burned it when they got bounced by the Angels. :)

doublem23
01-30-2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Really? Who would you say is better than the Twins? I may not rate them #1, but theyd be top 5.

I agree. The only team I'd clearly rank as better than the Twins are the Yankees.

Chisox_cali
01-30-2003, 08:26 PM
You should also not that that list came out right after the world series, it may have an updated date on it, but that was exact list that they put out after the series.

Iguana775
01-30-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Really? Who would you say is better than the Twins? I may not rate them #1, but theyd be top 5.

The Cubs for one.

CHISOXFAN13
01-30-2003, 09:32 PM
How bout the team that destroyed them in the ALCS and won the World Series? What have the Twins done in the offseason to make them better than Anaheim. Both teams haven't done much in the offseas, so to say the Twins are better is a joke in my opinion.

Bmr31
01-30-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
How bout the team that destroyed them in the ALCS and won the World Series? What have the Twins done in the offseason to make them better than Anaheim. Both teams haven't done much in the offseas, so to say the Twins are better is a joke in my opinion.

The Angels wont even make the playoffs. I Wouldnt rate them in my top 5. They just had one of those dream seasons where everything went right.

RedPinStripes
01-30-2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
The Angels wont even make the playoffs. I Wouldnt rate them in my top 5. They just had one of those dream seasons where everything went right.

I wouldnt be so sure about that. No one gets hot like they did out of luck. There isnt anone in that division anymore. Seattle is headed to the ****ter. Texas just sucks, Oakland will be right there, but it will be a fight between those 2 teams. And who's afraid of an Orilole?

It's a toss up of which good team will be left out. Yankees and Boston will be fighting for the division\wildcard, Sox\Twins, A's and "Defending World Champion Angels" will be a good race.

MRKARNO
01-30-2003, 09:46 PM
There are only two teams that truly scare me (as a sox fan) from top to bottom. The first of which is the Yankees, who will most likely show up this year more than last year, but it is possible that they will fall apart(in the playoffs, not their division).

The other team that scares me is the Angels. If their players play 3/4s as good as last year, they could win the AL West. But, I think that the Sox come in at number three, in the AL and the MLB.

The AL will show itself to have more dominance and less parity than the national league will(especially the east). The Twins are probably number 4 or 5 in the AL, interchangable with Oakland. Boston comes in at sixth, maybe Mariners at 7th. The rest of the AL looks to be chock full of easy wins.

The AL East will not be a tight race. The AL central will produce the wild card team and Oakland will upset the Angels this year because i dont see the Angels hitting as well as they did last year. See the early part of their 2002 season to understand what I'm saying.

Bmr31
01-30-2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
I wouldnt be so sure about that. No one gets hot like they did out of luck. There isnt anone in that division anymore. Seattle is headed to the ****ter. Texas just sucks, Oakland will be right there, but it will be a fight between those 2 teams. And who's afraid of an Orilole?

It's a toss up of which good team will be left out. Yankees and Boston will be fighting for the division\wildcard, Sox\Twins, A's and "Defending World Champion Angels" will be a good race.

I can think of a dozen teams in recent memories.....what was the pats record this season?

RedPinStripes
01-30-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I can think of a dozen teams in recent memories.....what was the pats record this season?

Dammit! :smile:

gogosoxgogo
01-30-2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
HUH? The braves are worse than last season, the yanks are old, and the A's lost to the twins last season.

I agree the Braves were better off last season, but the fact is that they've adressed the issues they've lost this winter and are still a very dominating team. Don't rule them out.

The Yankees may be old, but they stil have 8 starting pitchers, a stellar bullpen (yes, they lost Stanton and Mendoza, but they have 3 extra starters who will be in the pen, and have adressed those that they've lost). Add to that replacing Vander Wal with Matsui, and they are stacked at every position.

The A's didn't perform well in the offseason, but I as a Sox fan am a lot more frightened of them than I am of the Twins. They have the best starting staff in baseball next to the Yankees with their 3 young aces, and Lidle gives them a solid #4. Tejada and Chavez are major threats on offense. Durazo was a great pick up for them. I think that their bullpen will be better this year as well.

jeremyb1
01-30-2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
HUH? The braves are worse than last season, the yanks are old, and the A's lost to the twins last season.

since when does a five game series determine who the better team is? that's just completely illogical to me. even in a seven game series you can have a lot of things go right or wrong. lets be honest here, the playoffs are largely based simply on luck and a team's momentum at the end of the season, not which team is better.

i would say without hesitation that the a's have no fewer than five players (the big three, tejada, and chavez) better than any single player on the twins. the two teams' offenses are a wash. the twins get a small margin for defense and perhaps the pen, but the a's have the arguably best starting rotation in baseball.

the yanks are also better than the twins. they have the third best hitter in baseball on the team in giambi, soriano, matsui, jeter, and six top flight starting pitchers. the yanks have so much more talent than the twins its not even funny. i'm not blown away by the angels but my thought is that they're better also.

the braves may not be better than the twins but i'd argue that the phillies are. i'd also probably take the d-backs over the twins. obviously you have to rank the twins in the top ten but i'm not so sure they're in the top five.

kermittheefrog
01-30-2003, 11:11 PM
At the very least the following teams look better than the Twins right now:

A's
Yankees
Red Sox
Angels
Giants
Phillies

Maybes:
White Sox
Cardinals
Astros
D-Backs

gogosoxgogo
01-30-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
At the very least the following teams look better than the Twins right now:

A's
Yankees
Red Sox
Angels
Giants
Phillies

Maybes:
White Sox
Cardinals
Astros
D-Backs

Braves?

Bmr31
01-30-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
since when does a five game series determine who the better team is? that's just completely illogical to me. even in a seven game series you can have a lot of things go right or wrong. lets be honest here, the playoffs are largely based simply on luck and a team's momentum at the end of the season, not which team is better.

i would say without hesitation that the a's have no fewer than five players (the big three, tejada, and chavez) better than any single player on the twins. the two teams' offenses are a wash. the twins get a small margin for defense and perhaps the pen, but the a's have the arguably best starting rotation in baseball.

the yanks are also better than the twins. they have the third best hitter in baseball on the team in giambi, soriano, matsui, jeter, and six top flight starting pitchers. the yanks have so much more talent than the twins its not even funny. i'm not blown away by the angels but my thought is that they're better also.

the braves may not be better than the twins but i'd argue that the phillies are. i'd also probably take the d-backs over the twins. obviously you have to rank the twins in the top ten but i'm not so sure they're in the top five.

Since when? Since the beginning of time?

Bmr31
01-30-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
At the very least the following teams look better than the Twins right now:

A's
Yankees
Red Sox
Angels
Giants
Phillies

Maybes:
White Sox
Cardinals
Astros
D-Backs

We were referring to on the baseball field, not on paper. :)

gogosoxgogo
01-30-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
We were referring to on the baseball field, not on paper. :)

Oh come on, the Twins had a great season last year, yes, but I don't think they are going to repeat it. How can you rank them so high when other teams will easily have better 'on the field' results. Right now, it's hard to say how one team will be better than another on the field next season, because next season hasn't happened yet! BUT, based on last season's on the field success for the teams that have been listed by myself and others, as well as the on field success as certain players they have picked up, I BELIEVE that those teams will have a better season than the Twins.

Bmr31
01-31-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Oh come on, the Twins had a great season last year, yes, but I don't think they are going to repeat it. How can you rank them so high when other teams will easily have better 'on the field' results. Right now, it's hard to say how one team will be better than another on the field next season, because next season hasn't happened yet! BUT, based on last season's on the field success for the teams that have been listed by myself and others, as well as the on field success as certain players they have picked up, I BELIEVE that those teams will have a better season than the Twins.

I rank them "so high" because they have the kind of team thats going be fairly consistent. They have balance. Balanced teams are less likely to drop off from the previous seasons results. The sox are going to go through some pretty bad streaks, cuz they have holes. The sox lack balance, so if i had to bet on a division winner, id bet on the twins. That doesnt mean the sox cant take the division.

jeremyb1
01-31-2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Since when? Since the beginning of time?

hmm. that makes sense since 5 game playoff series haven't even existed for ten years yet. the d-rays lost a three game series to the yankees last season? are they your pick for the al east? or is it ludicrous to place so much emphasis on a three games series?

jeremyb1
01-31-2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
We were referring to on the baseball field, not on paper. :)

that's a pretty meaningless statement. anything can happen on the field i guess. does that mean the rangers have a 1 in 4 chance of winning the al west this season? or are the twins just the ultimate "on the field" team?

jeremyb1
01-31-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
At the very least the following teams look better than the Twins right now:

A's
Yankees
Red Sox
Angels
Giants
Phillies

Maybes:
White Sox
Cardinals
Astros
D-Backs

that's a good list kermitt. i forgot about the red sox. they were better than the twins last season.

Bmr31
01-31-2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
hmm. that makes sense since 5 game playoff series haven't even existed for ten years yet. the d-rays lost a three game series to the yankees last season? are they your pick for the al east? or is it ludicrous to place so much emphasis on a three games series?

Last i checked, the team that WINS is considered the better team. Im pretty sure thats how teams are evaluated nowadays.....

Bmr31
01-31-2003, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
that's a pretty meaningless statement. anything can happen on the field i guess. does that mean the rangers have a 1 in 4 chance of winning the al west this season? or are the twins just the ultimate "on the field" team?


Am i supposed to have a response for this mess? lol :D: If you dont realize that there is a LOT more to winning than numbers, that we should end this conversation. Sorry....

Lip Man 1
01-31-2003, 02:13 AM
BMR 31 says:

The Angels wont even make the playoffs. I Wouldnt rate them in my top 5. They just had one of those dream seasons where everything went right.

Kind of like the White Sox in 2000!

Lip

RichH55
01-31-2003, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Last i checked, the team that WINS is considered the better team. Im pretty sure thats how teams are evaluated nowadays.....

Super...then you disagree with yourself on this matter because you totally wrote off the Angels and by your standards....the team that Wins....they should trump the Twins

Bmr31
01-31-2003, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Super...then you disagree with yourself on this matter because you totally wrote off the Angels and by your standards....the team that Wins....they should trump the Twins

Those were two seperate conversations. The Angels deserve respect until beaten, i just think thats going to happen before the playoffs.

jeremyb1
01-31-2003, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Last i checked, the team that WINS is considered the better team. Im pretty sure thats how teams are evaluated nowadays.....

the last time i'd checked the a's have won more games than the twins the last three seasons even if you include the playoffs last season.

jeremyb1
01-31-2003, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Am i supposed to have a response for this mess? lol :D: If you dont realize that there is a LOT more to winning than numbers, that we should end this conversation. Sorry....

just saying "numbers" is a huge oversimplification. that word was no where in my post. regardless of how much "numbers" have to do with winning, you give no reason anywhere as to why the twins are better on the field than on paper. that was what i was attacking more than anything, your unsupported statement that the twins are somehow much much better than they are on paper while other teams are much much worse.

Bobby Thigpen
01-31-2003, 09:41 AM
Whose to say the Twins didn't have one of those "dream" seasons last year. They certainly aren't the best team in the league going into spring training. There's at least 5 teams better than them. Heck they may not even be the best team in their division. Remember it only takes one or two things to happen injury wise and the Twins are fighting it out with the Royals for last place in the division.

hold2dibber
01-31-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
The A's didn't perform well in the offseason, but I as a Sox fan am a lot more frightened of them than I am of the Twins. They have the best starting staff in baseball next to the Yankees with their 3 young aces, and Lidle gives them a solid #4. Tejada and Chavez are major threats on offense. Durazo was a great pick up for them. I think that their bullpen will be better this year as well.

FYI, the A's traded Lidle to the Blue Jays this off season (maybe as part of the Durazo deal?). In any event, Ted Lily is their no. 4.

ma-gaga
01-31-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i forgot about the red sox. they were better than the twins last season.

No they weren't. They had a better pyth, they had better hitters, and they had a better 1-2 punch, but they did not have a better record/season than the Twins.

The only other thing is I think that TSN's ranking here includes contenders plus prospects and scales the two accordingly. Plus, as someone else said, this list IS 3 MONTHS old. It doesn't include the W.Sox signing Colon, the Yankees signing the entire Asian/Cuban all-star team, Atlanta trading away Millwood for junk.

However, if you look at this ranking as teams that can contend, and have prospects for the future, the Twins have to be at or near the top. The Yankees/RedSox have no prospects, the Indians aren't very likely to contend this year and most of the others are FIRMLY in either Rebuilding or Contending mode. The Twins are trying to do both...

CHISOXFAN13
01-31-2003, 11:42 AM
BMR: You blasted me for saying the Angels should be higher than the Twins.

Then you proceed to say that five-game series determine who is better, so the A's aren't bettter.

Well, the Angels crushed the Twins in a series so I'm not sure what your argument is.

Can't have it both ways, my friend.

maurice
01-31-2003, 02:11 PM
AL

1. Angels: champs are the best team until another proves differently
2. yanks: old but very deep
3. A's: consistently good (in regular season)
4. Mariners: better than most seem to think
5. Twins: lots of ?'s in rotation and with young position players
6. White Sox: see Twins
7. Red Sox: consistently better on paper than on field

NL

Don't care, as long as the scrubs finish last in the central. :D:

hold2dibber
01-31-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by maurice
AL

1. Angels: champs are the best team until another proves differently
2. yanks: old but very deep
3. A's: consistently good (in regular season)
4. Mariners: better than most seem to think
5. Twins: lots of ?'s in rotation and young position players
6. White Sox: see Twins
7. Red Sox: consistently better on paper than on field

NL

Don't care, as long as the scrubs finish last in the central. :D:

Here's how I peg it in the AL:

1. Yankees (deep, versatile, experienced, won 103 games last year and improved in offseason with forein imports)

2. A's (fantastic rotation, strong bullpen, already had a good line-up and added Durazo, who will put up big power numbers)

3. Red Sox (great line-up from 1-9, good depth, best starter in the AL; much depends on Lowe having another big year)

4. Twins (great balance and depth, but need rotation to step it up)

5. Angels (over-achieved last year; questions in the rotation, but great team effort and complimentary parts)

6. Mariners (solid all around, but thin in the rotation and still lacking a big bat in the middle of the lineup)

7. White Sox (great line-up, and great punch at the top of the rotation, but big ?s at the end of the rotation and have problems with defense and fundamentals)

kermittheefrog
01-31-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
No they weren't. They had a better pyth, they had better hitters, and they had a better 1-2 punch, but they did not have a better record/season than the Twins.


The Red Sox also played in a tougher division. They are better than the Twins.

gogosoxgogo
01-31-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
FYI, the A's traded Lidle to the Blue Jays this off season (maybe as part of the Durazo deal?). In any event, Ted Lily is their no. 4.

Thanks for the info, I didn't realize that.

jeremyb1
01-31-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Plus, as someone else said, this list IS 3 MONTHS old. It doesn't include the W.Sox signing Colon, the Yankees signing the entire Asian/Cuban all-star team, Atlanta trading away Millwood for junk.


i'm not so sure the list is three months old. the date listed is jan. 27th, '02 which is obviosly wrong. i seem to recall an offseason list before this one and i wonder if the type wasn't simply the year and this list came out 4 days ago. in any event i had the impression it did in fact come out after the colon deal.

ma-gaga
01-31-2003, 06:52 PM
i'm not so sure the list is three months old. the date listed is jan. 27th, '02 which is obviosly wrong. i seem to recall an offseason list before this one and i wonder if the type wasn't simply the year and this list came out 4 days ago. in any event i had the impression it did in fact come out after the colon deal

You know, you may be right... Just I know that I read this same type of article from TSN a couple of weeks back. I think they've updated the commentary a little, but the Twins were still in first place back then.

The Red Sox also played in a tougher division. They are better than the Twins
You try to find me 5 Red Sox fans to tell me that they had a better season than the Twins did last year. 5.

hempsox
01-31-2003, 09:37 PM
So who was ranked #1 in last years TSN preseason rankings?

What were the Angels and Twinkies ranked last year at this time?

One should check water depth before one jumps off the diving board.