PDA

View Full Version : Power Rankings Already?


Vestigio
02-10-2007, 02:29 PM
Dayn Perry WARNING!

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/powerRankings

Injuns #2 :?:
Scrubs #16:D:

ondafarm
02-10-2007, 02:45 PM
He's got a few points, although he's still a complete bonehead.

Mr.1Dog
02-10-2007, 02:46 PM
However, they’re not particularly good. As ever, the season may hinge on Mark Prior’s ability to stay healthy.

It's like in Caddyshack when Chevy Chase is talking to Rodney: "You're, umm, you're not good."

In terms of Mark Prior, why can't the media just give up already on him being healthy. A simple cold for him turns into shoulder issues because he sneezed too hard.

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 02:53 PM
Dayn Perry WARNING!

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/powerRankings

Injuns #2 :?:
Scrubs #16:D:

That's how competitive the AL is...we're still on the outside looking in for a wild card spot.

Thankfully, it's just power rankings in February and not September.

MarySwiss
02-10-2007, 02:57 PM
Dayn Perry WARNING!

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/powerRankings

Injuns #2 :?:
Scrubs #16:D:

Thanks for the warning. I should've listened to you.

caulfield12
02-10-2007, 03:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayn_Perry

I can't trust any baseball writers from Mississippi. I loved the first line of his bio...didn't know he now lived in Chicago, that makes the Indians love even more interesting.

Fenway
02-10-2007, 03:59 PM
The Sporting News baseball book ranks the Twins as the best team in baseball ( and yes that takes into consideration Loriano being lost )

skobabe8
02-10-2007, 04:21 PM
Perry sucks. But he definately recognizes the beast that is the AL Central.

lakeviewsoxfan
02-10-2007, 04:22 PM
What is the average age of the Indians BP 40?

Whitesox029
02-10-2007, 04:57 PM
As dumb as it is to rank Cleveland 2nd, he's the only person in the media who seems to recognize that all the Cubs did was overpay for mediocre pitching.

WhiteSox5187
02-10-2007, 05:16 PM
Oh gee, the Yankees at number one, there's a shocker.

FedEx227
02-10-2007, 05:21 PM
What is the average age of the Indians BP 40?

Yeah in 1997 their bullpen would've been amazing.

Unfortunately its 2007. So :(:

RKMeibalane
02-10-2007, 11:18 PM
As dumb as it is to rank Cleveland 2nd, he's the only person in the media who seems to recognize that all the Cubs did was overpay for mediocre pitching.

A broken clock is right twice each day. It was only a matter of time before Perry- who has made a career out of throwing **** at the wall- got something to stick. Don't give him credit, because he doesn't deserve any.

Brian26
02-10-2007, 11:23 PM
The Sporting News baseball book ranks the Twins as the best team in baseball ( and yes that takes into consideration Loriano being lost )

I might have to skip buying that this year. I usually pick it up, but the Chicago newstand version this year has a giant photo of Soriano on the cover.

As for Perry, at least he recognizes the AL dominance. Eight of the top ten teams are AL, and the defending World Champs are nowhere to be found.

IndianWhiteSox
02-11-2007, 02:01 AM
**** Dayn Perry I can't believe that loser has a job after all these years. Hopefully he'll go to ESPN where he can be a total ******** with the other anal-lysts

Murphy10
02-11-2007, 09:17 PM
and 7 of the last ten are of the nl. woo

PKalltheway
02-11-2007, 09:38 PM
Geez, the Indians at number 2? That guy is a dope. I don't even know why I was stupid enough to look, knowing that it was Perry that created that "list." Never shall I make that mistake again.

BanditJimmy
02-12-2007, 03:42 AM
Quote from the article regarding the Blue Jays:

"There's some thump here, but the lineup is heavily right-handed and the rotation behind A.J. Burnett is quite weak. "


:o:

Did I miss the Roy Halladay trade?

getonbckthr
02-12-2007, 04:09 AM
Quote from the article regarding the Blue Jays:

"There's some thump here, but the lineup is heavily right-handed and the rotation behind A.J. Burnett is quite weak. "


:o:

Did I miss the Roy Halladay trade?

I'm hoping he meant as far as Burnett being the #2 and that 3,4 and 5 are weak, if not he officially deserves the "IDIOT" nickname.

Oh by the way Bandit:
:tealpolice: :tealtutor:

Hokiesox
02-12-2007, 09:35 AM
He picks us third in the AL central. Not too shabby, same place the experts predicted in 2005.


I'm getting more excited about this season.

The Dude
02-12-2007, 09:41 AM
As much as people are bitching about Perry, he has the Sox at 6th, which is pretty damn good to start, and the AL central has 4 of it's 5 teams in the top 7!
All these years we've bitched about our division getting no respect and now we have the best in baseball and EVERYONE knows it.:cool:

The Dude
02-12-2007, 09:42 AM
**** Dayn Perry I can't believe that loser has a job after all these years. Hopefully he'll go to ESPN where he can be a total ******** with the other anal-lysts

:?:

Moses_Scurry
02-12-2007, 10:15 AM
The 2007 preview magazine I bought in the airport yesterday picked the Sox to win the central and lose to the Yanks in the ALCS. I wish I could remember which magazine it was. They picked the Tigers to win the wild card, the Twins to finish third and the tribe to finish 4th. They picked the cubs to finish 4th behind the cards, brewers, and astros. Obviously they underestimated the Reds and the Pirates!

rdwj
02-12-2007, 10:50 AM
As much as people are bitching about Perry, he has the Sox at 6th, which is pretty damn good to start, and the AL central has 4 of it's 5 teams in the top 7!
All these years we've bitched about our division getting no respect and now we have the best in baseball and EVERYONE knows it.:cool:

That's exactly what I took from it. It's not a horrible list and it shows just how competitive the Central really is. EVERYONE (except the Royals) is in the top 7 - that's pretty good.

Cuck_The_Fubs
02-12-2007, 11:21 AM
Dayn Perry's rankings = BS

downstairs
02-12-2007, 11:30 AM
I don't have so much of a problem with him picking the Jindians 2nd because he does basically pick the entire AL Central as the class of all of MLB... which is true.

Vestigio
02-12-2007, 05:11 PM
The reason I dont like the Indians at #2 is because they arent proven. Every season for the past 3-4 years, they were predicted by many to win the division. Yet their excuse for the Indians not winning the Central was because they lack experience, something they have used in those 3 to 4 years. Now we're to expect that just because they "upgraded" their pen, they're now the favorites again? Its them same routine...

whitem0nkey
02-12-2007, 05:13 PM
I found another power rank.

http://www.sportscolumn.com/story/2007/1/10/184943/082

#17. Chicago White Sox- I can safley say that the Chicago White Sox will be this season's bust. Jim Thome's superb season last year was a fluke, and Freddy Garcia has moved on to the Phillies. Missing the playoffs last year was a shocker, but this year it will be expected.

#16. Cleveland Indians- Travis Hafner is one of the most under the radar players in the league today. Even though he was out for almost all of September, he still had 40+ homeruns and 117 runs batted in, to go along with a 300. batting average. These numbers will only get better, along with the play of the Cleveland Indians.

:?:

rdivaldi
02-12-2007, 05:26 PM
I found another power rank.

http://www.sportscolumn.com/story/2007/1/10/184943/082


Wow, I'll never get those 2 minutes of my life back. That was awful...

WizardsofOzzie
02-12-2007, 05:40 PM
Wow, I'll never get those 2 minutes of my life back. That was awful...
You actually read it for a full 2 minutes?? :smile:

DoItForDanPasqua
02-12-2007, 05:47 PM
I like where he says that the Yankees can score 1000 runs for the season: that's 6.17 runs per game. I think later he'll predict that New York will finish the season with a record of 164 and -2.

soxwon
02-12-2007, 05:48 PM
6th aint bad
for the A.L. Central i see us as
1 sox
2 cle
3 det
4 minn
5 kc
book it- det will get hurt and fall fast
sox win division by 6 games

DiGiSyKo
02-12-2007, 06:20 PM
I found another power rank.

http://www.sportscolumn.com/story/2007/1/10/184943/082

#17. Chicago White Sox- I can safley say that the Chicago White Sox will be this season's bust. Jim Thome's superb season last year was a fluke, and Freddy Garcia has moved on to the Phillies. Missing the playoffs last year was a shocker, but this year it will be expected.

#16. Cleveland Indians- Travis Hafner is one of the most under the radar players in the league today. Even though he was out for almost all of September, he still had 40+ homeruns and 117 runs batted in, to go along with a 300. batting average. These numbers will only get better, along with the play of the Cleveland Indians.

:?:

Anyone can write for this site... http://www.sportscolumn.com/special/writerswanted

mjmcend
02-12-2007, 07:00 PM
I like where he says that the Yankees can score 1000 runs for the season: that's 6.17 runs per game. I think later he'll predict that New York will finish the season with a record of 164 and -2.

They scored 930 last year without a healthy Sheffield or Matsui and a horrible year from ARod. Now they get a full year from Abreu and Matsui. 1000 runs is not out of the question.

mjmcend
02-12-2007, 07:09 PM
People are loving the Indians way too much. Yes they had a positive run differential last year, which does indicate that they had some bad luck last year and they will be much better this year. However, they still only had the 3rd best run differential in the AL Central.

Det + 147
Min + 118
Cle + 88
Chi + 74

The Indians are certainly the top candidate for most improved ball club, however, I don't think they are going to seriously compete for the title of best ball club.

rdivaldi
02-12-2007, 09:26 PM
You actually read it for a full 2 minutes?? :smile:

Well, not exactly. I had to take a moment and leave a comment, which surprisingly enough is still up there.

caulfield12
02-12-2007, 11:57 PM
People are loving the Indians way too much. Yes they had a positive run differential last year, which does indicate that they had some bad luck last year and they will be much better this year. However, they still only had the 3rd best run differential in the AL Central.

Det + 147
Min + 118
Cle + 88
Chi + 74

The Indians are certainly the top candidate for most improved ball club, however, I don't think they are going to seriously compete for the title of best ball club.


Historically, the White Sox beat or came close to beating the Twins in this category every year from 2002-2004, but the Twins always won the close games and the Sox always looked better on paper due to their blowout wins skewing the averages. Same explanation with the Indians being where they were last year...their bullpen and record in close games was abysmal.

rdivaldi
02-13-2007, 09:48 AM
People are loving the Indians way too much. Yes they had a positive run differential last year, which does indicate that they had some bad luck last year and they will be much better this year.

Ugh, there's that word again, "luck". I'm not trying to bash you mjmcend, but stat guys need to stop using that term to explain away problems with their formulas. Run differential is useless in modern day baseball with all of the blowouts skewing the numbers, just as caulfield pointed out.

mjmcend
02-13-2007, 01:14 PM
Ugh, there's that word again, "luck". I'm not trying to bash you mjmcend, but stat guys need to stop using that term to explain away problems with their formulas. Run differential is useless in modern day baseball with all of the blowouts skewing the numbers, just as caulfield pointed out.

It is not really a formula. If you score more runs than you give up, you should win more games than you lose. It doesn't happen all the time. I suspect it happens more often if you have a crappy bullpen (see Indians '06). It is not an exact science nor did I ever try and claim it was.

My mentioning of 'luck' was really just me being lazy and not wanting to type out why I thought the Indians didn't compete last year. Some of it was bad luck with respect to injuries and bullpen guys flaming out. Now, I realize that it is not just pure luck that a pitcher fails to live up to his potential or that an injury occurs, but I am not a doctor, nor a scout, so I boil it down to bad breaks for a message board post.

caulfield12
02-13-2007, 01:19 PM
It is not really a formula. If you score more runs than you give up, you should win more games than you lose. It doesn't happen all the time. I suspect it happens more often if you have a crappy bullpen (see Indians '06). It is not an exact science nor did I ever try and claim it was.

My mentioning of 'luck' was really just me being lazy and not wanting to type out why I thought the Indians didn't competer last year. Some of it was bad luck with respect to injuries and bullpen guys flaming out. Now, I realize that it is not just pure luck that a pitcher fails to live up to his potential or that an injury occurs, but I am not a doctor, nor a scout, so I boil it down to bad breaks for a message board post.


The bullpen didn't so much "flame out" as they discarded Wickman and turned the role over to a procession of 2-3 inexperienced pitchers with lots of talent and good "stuff" but lacking in confidence and savvy.

rdivaldi
02-13-2007, 02:04 PM
It is not really a formula. If you score more runs than you give up, you should win more games than you lose. It doesn't happen all the time. I suspect it happens more often if you have a crappy bullpen (see Indians '06). It is not an exact science nor did I ever try and claim it was.

My mentioning of 'luck' was really just me being lazy and not wanting to type out why I thought the Indians didn't competer last year. Some of it was bad luck with respect to injuries and bullpen guys flaming out. Now, I realize that it is not just pure luck that a pitcher fails to live up to his potential or that an injury occurs, but I am not a doctor, nor a scout, so I boil it down to bad breaks for a message board post.

Yeah I figured as much. My disdain for the word comes from the propeller-heads at BP who can't bear to have their computations end up as meaningless as a 3rd graders attempt at formulating baseball results. Pythagorean wins are silly in my eye...

mjmcend
02-13-2007, 02:34 PM
Yeah I figured as much. My disdain for the word comes from the propeller-heads at BP who can't bear to have their computations end up as meaningless as a 3rd graders attempt at formulating baseball results. Pythagorean wins are silly in my eye...

I don't think Pythagorean wins and run differential are completely worthless. They are a good quick-and-dirty way to differintiate the relative strength of two teams with a similar record. For example, the Indians and the Mariners ended up with the same record but Cleveland was +88 runs and Seattle was -36. And I bet most people who follow baseball would agree that the Indians were a superior team to the Mariners last year despite the same record. Obviously, Cleveland's poor record was influenced by the unbalanced schedule and being in a division with three 90+ win teams.

rdivaldi
02-14-2007, 01:03 AM
I don't think Pythagorean wins and run differential are completely worthless.

99% worthless?

:smile:

caulfield12
02-14-2007, 06:45 AM
I don't think Pythagorean wins and run differential are completely worthless. They are a good quick-and-dirty way to differintiate the relative strength of two teams with a similar record. For example, the Indians and the Mariners ended up with the same record but Cleveland was +88 runs and Seattle was -36. And I bet most people who follow baseball would agree that the Indians were a superior team to the Mariners last year despite the same record. Obviously, Cleveland's poor record was influenced by the unbalanced schedule and being in a division with three 90+ win teams.


Or you could have an offense that becomes devastatingly efficient with a smaller run differential, like the 2005 White Sox.

2005 White Sox Pythagorean 91-71 (actual record 8 games better)
2000 White Sox Pythagorean 92-70 (actual record 3 games better)

But anyone who saw those two teams could tell the difference that a simple formula cannot.

If Seattle had one more player like Ichiro in their line-up (as opposed to Sexson/Beltre), maybe they become more like the 05 Sox and their bullpen becomes a "shutdown" type of pen that wins all the close games like we did in 2005.

It is interesting to look at it from an "under/overachievement" perspective...that has more validity IMO. The 2000/2005 White Sox teams did better than what SHOULD have been expected statistically, most of the 01-04 teams did not.

2002 81-71 (PYTH=86-76)
2003 86-76 (PYTH=84-74)
2004 83-79 (PTTH=84-78)

We were actually "EXPECTED" by the formula to go 88-74 last year, so we statistically "overachieved," even though most observers of baseball would certainly say the opposite. Nobody would accept that Ozzie did a decent job last year...but he was SO good in 2005, and everything went so right, that it seemed like he was horrible. It's not unlike dating a "girl next door" after taking Petra Nemcova to prom. If you'd started out with the girl next door, then you wouldn't be unsatisfied.

Statistically, the 2002 was a BAD managing job...2003 wasn't quite as bad as I would have thought.