PDA

View Full Version : sickening ESPN rankings


jeremyb1
05-05-2004, 12:25 PM
Currently, the Sox are ranked 14th with the comment

Pretty Nice Ratio: The White Sox have scored six more runs than their opponents (135-129) and have six more wins (16-10). Memo to Ozzie -- that ain't gonna last.

While this is certainly true the Twins, ranked 9th, have outscored their opponents by a whopping 8 runs! Is Lew Ford going to continue to hit .429?!

Thigpen Rules
05-05-2004, 12:30 PM
Fine by me, I like flying under the radar. We will get respect, IMO we have a much better team than the twinkies,

bobj4400
05-05-2004, 12:30 PM
ESPN has had a boner over the Twins since 2001 and I dont see it going away anytime soon. You could hear how upset they were on Baseball Tonight last night when Koskie was called out at the plate in the ninth. It will just make it that much more enjoyable when Boston Gammons and the crew have to announce White Sox playoff games this October!!

poorme
05-05-2004, 12:30 PM
Maybe we'd do better in the "Luckiest" teams rankings.

batmanZoSo
05-05-2004, 12:34 PM
Of course it "ain't gonna last." Ooooh, ESPN sounds really smart and cool, don't they?! You know what else ain't gonna last? The Rangers, the Twins, the Red Sox....none of these teams will finish with .650 records.

WSox8404
05-05-2004, 12:44 PM
Boston being number two is a joke in itself. They just lost how many straight? Yeah ESPN really knows what it is talking about.

MRKARNO
05-05-2004, 01:12 PM
The truth is that it's not going to last: We're gonna start outscoring our opponents more when the weather is better, which it is finally getting. Konerko, Maggs, Crede and Lee will all pick up their overall hitting game pretty soon.

bigdommer
05-05-2004, 01:15 PM
A few reasons why I never liked the Power Rankings:

1) They love the popular picks. The Rangers are popular because they are better without A-Rod. The Twins are popular because they were supposed to be contracted. The Cubs are popular because they have ivy on their wall.

2) A lot of these writers have to stick with their preseason picks to avoid criticism. Almost every writer had NYY, BoSox, Cubs, and Astros in the World Series, so they have to rank them high. The Phillies are ahead of the White Sox in the rankings, yet they are 11-13. But the "experts" predicted the Phils to win their division.

3) I think the NL gets too much credit. Outside of the Astros, Cubs, and Marlins, I don't see an NL team as good as the BoSox, Yanks, Twins, White Sox, A's, Rangers, or Angels. The Braves, Padres, Dodgers, Phillies, and Giants would get eaten alive in the AL.

thepaulbowski
05-05-2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by bigdommer
3) I think the NL gets too much credit. Outside of the Astros, Cubs, and Marlins, I don't see an NL team as good as the BoSox, Yanks, Twins, White Sox, A's, Rangers, or Angels. The Braves, Padres, Dodgers, Phillies, and Giants would get eaten alive in the AL.


Look how Pettite & Clemens are dominating the NL opponents. Both of them are probably thinking they should have went to the NL sooner!! And remember the "adjustment time" all the announcers talked about with them.

owensmouth
05-05-2004, 01:33 PM
I just hope that whenever the ESPN baseball crew visit the Cell, they are made to feel uncomfortable.

SoxxoS
05-05-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Look how Pettite & Clemens are dominating the NL opponents. Both of them are probably thinking they should have went to the NL sooner!! And remember the "adjustment time" all the announcers talked about with them.

There isn't adjustment time when you have 2-3 guaranteed outs when the pitcher hits. I think people really undervalue that stat.

Pitcher leads off an inning...chances of a big inning go down about 80%. Pitcher up with the bases loaded...the opposing pitcher is getting out of that jam 75% of the time...as opposed to the A.L. where the pitcher has to get a guy like Olivo out. It's a huge advantage.

bigdommer
05-05-2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
There isn't adjustment time when you have 2-3 guaranteed outs when the pitcher hits. I think people really undervalue that stat.

Pitcher leads off an inning...chances of a big inning go down about 80%. Pitcher up with the bases loaded...the opposing pitcher is getting out of that jam 75% of the time...as opposed to the A.L. where the pitcher has to get a guy like Olivo out. It's a huge advantage.

I agree. Pitching in the NL is definitely easier than the AL. Not only is facing the 9 hitter more dangerous than the pitcher, but the 9 hitter in the AL usually can run and make things happen on the basepaths. Not only will the pitcher strikeout most of the time, he will usually bunt with a guy on, even with two outs. You can afford to pitch around a good 8 hitter.

Maybe this is why Fogg and Wells did better in the NL........?

bigdommer
05-05-2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by bigdommer
I agree. Pitching in the NL is definitely easier than the AL. Not only is facing the 9 hitter more dangerous than the pitcher, but the 9 hitter in the AL usually can run and make things happen on the basepaths. Not only will the pitcher strikeout most of the time, he will usually bunt with a guy on, even with two outs. You can afford to pitch around a good 8 hitter.

Maybe this is why Fogg and Wells did better in the NL........?

I meant with one out, but you know what I mean.

Over By There
05-05-2004, 02:05 PM
:whocares

Check page 4 of the Trib Sports section for the only rankings that count. Seriously, all the energy it takes to get incensed over stupid "power rankings" could probably be better used elswhere in each of our lives.

jackbrohamer
05-05-2004, 02:06 PM
I used to read espn.com & watch ESPN but almost never do any more. Their internet writers are almost all fools (Neyer, Gammons, Stark) as are the talking heads on baseball (Gammons, Reynolds, Sutcliffe).

Wanna bet that the "power rankings" had the Marlins at or near the bottom for half of last year?

habibharu
05-05-2004, 02:32 PM
how are the freaking braves ahead of us?????!!!!!!!

nasox
05-05-2004, 02:36 PM
Even though it is pointless, I must pick my battles. I'm going to e-mail them pointing out these faults in their rankings and back it up with proof. I hope a few of you do so also. Too bad they probably won't publish it.

ma_deuce
05-05-2004, 02:44 PM
A win is a win. ESPN can go to hell.

Deuce

SoxxoS
05-05-2004, 02:49 PM
Hey ESPN, I'll tell you what else isn't going to last-

We are 3 for our last 28 with RISP.

There is your stupid run differential reasoning for ya.

I don't care how we win, as long as we win. I don't care if we win the Central with a record of 82-80, as long as we make the playoffs. I don't care.

batmanZoSo
05-05-2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
There isn't adjustment time when you have 2-3 guaranteed outs when the pitcher hits. I think people really undervalue that stat.

Pitcher leads off an inning...chances of a big inning go down about 80%. Pitcher up with the bases loaded...the opposing pitcher is getting out of that jam 75% of the time...as opposed to the A.L. where the pitcher has to get a guy like Olivo out. It's a huge advantage.

That's why I respect guys like Pedro and Clemens more than Maddux and Glavine. I hate when people call the NL the real league or crap like that. Those pitchers are soft in that league, that's why the AL wins most of the time.

jabrch
05-05-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
That's why I respect guys like Pedro and Clemens more than Maddux and Glavine. I hate when people call the NL the real league or crap like that. Those pitchers are soft in that league, that's why the AL wins most of the time.


That being said, who would you rather have up, Rowand or Dontrelle Willis? (Hint: Willis)

bigdommer
05-05-2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
That being said, who would you rather have up, Rowand or Dontrelle Willis? (Hint: Willis)

With that being said, who would you rather have up for your team: Olivo or any pitcher in the NL, including Willis. I'll take Olivo.

stillz
05-05-2004, 03:25 PM
Last night on BT, John Kruk explained why the Twins are having so much success. It's because guys like Guzman, Hunter, Koskie... they just love to play the game of baseball.

Outstanding analysis. Thanks for the insight, ESPN.

jackbrohamer
05-05-2004, 03:30 PM
The only way I can stand watching BT is with the sound off. Preferably at a bar.

jenmcm76
05-05-2004, 04:20 PM
If the ESPN rankings make you sick, change the channel! The CBS Sportsline website has the Sox at #4. Here's the link:
http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/powerrankings

As an added bonus, the Cubs are at #5. :)

JRIG
05-05-2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by stillz
Last night on BT, John Kruk explained why the Twins are having so much success. It's because guys like Guzman, Hunter, Koskie... they just love to play the game of baseball.

Outstanding analysis. Thanks for the insight, ESPN.

A question for the mods -- With things looking like BBTN will reach a new low in quality this year, any chance of getting a Harold Reynolds or maybe John Kruk tag for our uses? Thanks in advance.

SpartanSoxFan
05-05-2004, 06:04 PM
I second that motion on getting the Kruk and Reynolds tags.

minastirith67
05-05-2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by nasox
Even though it is pointless, I must pick my battles. I'm going to e-mail them pointing out these faults in their rankings and back it up with proof. I hope a few of you do so also. Too bad they probably won't publish it.

What's their email?

nasox
05-05-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by minastirith67
What's their email?

My bad. I went off on a rant for no reason. I confused the MLB power rankings with the NBA power rankings where you can send Mark Stein a comment (usually they are about how messed up his rankings are-his rebuttals are pretty funny). On the MLB rankings they don't have a comment thing. I guess they want to cover up their tracks for their truly hideous rankings.... o well........sorry to all.... :)

Bisco Stu
05-06-2004, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by bigdommer
A few reasons why I never liked the Power Rankings:

1) They love the popular picks. The Rangers are popular because they are better without A-Rod. The Twins are popular because they were supposed to be contracted. The Cubs are popular because they have ivy on their wall.

2) A lot of these writers have to stick with their preseason picks to avoid criticism. Almost every writer had NYY, BoSox, Cubs, and Astros in the World Series, so they have to rank them high. The Phillies are ahead of the White Sox in the rankings, yet they are 11-13. But the "experts" predicted the Phils to win their division.

3) I think the NL gets too much credit. Outside of the Astros, Cubs, and Marlins, I don't see an NL team as good as the BoSox, Yanks, Twins, White Sox, A's, Rangers, or Angels. The Braves, Padres, Dodgers, Phillies, and Giants would get eaten alive in the AL.

Perfectly stated, bd.

Nard
05-06-2004, 04:09 AM
At least they have Detroit nice and low.

Just TWO days ago on BBTN Kurk & The Gang were talking about early season surprises (first off, can you even call it "early season" anymore... it HAS been 25+ games), and Kruk is still talking about the ****ing Tigers.

Hello? They're back to sucking ass again. Even the ESPN power rankers know that.

TDog
05-06-2004, 12:14 PM
If this were college football, rankings would be important.

It's not.

compy75
05-06-2004, 12:25 PM
It should be noted that only Marc Stein picks the middle 15 teams. In the small print, it says the "experts" pick the top 10 and bottom 5. I find it amusing that the Yanks were so low and Bosox so high after the recent hot streak and struggles. However, it will be merely a short time till people realize Oakland has nearly 7 automatic outs (Durazo is arguable) in their lineup..