PDA

View Full Version : White Sox player ratings from ESPN


Fenway
06-11-2007, 02:36 PM
ouch

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playerrating?type=batting&team=cws&position=all



What are the ESPN Player Ratings? (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2897967)

lostfan
06-11-2007, 02:44 PM
Considering the stats are all for this year, this is pretty much spot-on. They suck and most of the guys haven't done **** all year. It's harsh, but it's the ugly truth.

oeo
06-11-2007, 02:47 PM
ouch

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playerrating?type=batting&team=cws&position=all



What are the ESPN Player Ratings? (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2897967)

What is the point of this thread? :?:

Everybody and their mother knows the Sox have not played well this year, thanks for clearing that up for us.

QCIASOXFAN
06-11-2007, 02:51 PM
What is the point of this thread? :?:

Everybody and their mother knows the Sox have not played well this year, thanks for clearing that up for us.
To bring out this guy :anon:

Fenway
06-11-2007, 02:51 PM
What is the point of this thread? :?:

Everybody and their mother knows the Sox have not played well this year, thanks for clearing that up for us.

I am a little stunned when the Sox's highest rank player (Thome) is just above Julio Lugo :o:

skobabe8
06-11-2007, 02:58 PM
I am a little stunned when the Sox's highest rank player (Thome) is just above Julio Lugo :o:

Also, the Sox' highest rated player is the worst of any teams highest rated player. Think about that for a second.

CHISOXFAN13
06-11-2007, 03:01 PM
And according to this, Magglio Ordonez is the best player in baseball and Johan Santana toils in the 70s.

Enough said. What a waste of space.

MRM
06-11-2007, 03:39 PM
Also, the Sox' highest rated player is the worst of any teams highest rated player. Think about that for a second.

Who cares? This is an obviously flawed formula any 2nd grader could have pulled out of their hat. Consider the source.

SoxFan78
06-11-2007, 05:09 PM
Wait, this is from ESPN?

WGAS

skobabe8
06-11-2007, 05:28 PM
Who cares? This is an obviously flawed formula any 2nd grader could have pulled out of their hat. Consider the source.

Name the flaws then.

Look, ESPN makes me want to puke as much as anybody. But I dont hate this formula just because of that. No one is saying this is the official list of the top players, just a ranking someone did based on stats. I cant really argue with it. And the way Maggs is hitting, this thing might be right on.

russ99
06-11-2007, 05:35 PM
And the way Maggs is hitting, this thing might be right on.

There have been a few moments in the last week where I've wondered where the Sox would be right now with Lee in LF, Maggs in RF, Rowand in CF and Thomas at DH...

Though we probably wouldn't have won that title in 2005, so maybe it's a case of paying now for winning then. I'd rather have the Championship.

lostfan
06-11-2007, 05:41 PM
There have been a few moments in the last week where I've wondered where the Sox would be right now with Lee in LF, Maggs in RF, Rowand in CF and Thomas at DH...

Though we probably wouldn't have won that title in 2005, so maybe it's a case of paying now for winning then. I'd rather have the Championship.
Tigers fans have been giving me a hard time about how "this is now" and how bright their future looks (not as much as they think, actually). They say things like "enjoy rebuilding." I tell them to come talk to me when and if they have a ring. They hate that.

MRM
06-11-2007, 05:47 PM
Name the flaws then.

Look, ESPN makes me want to puke as much as anybody. But I dont hate this formula just because of that. No one is saying this is the official list of the top players, just a ranking someone did based on stats. I cant really argue with it. And the way Maggs is hitting, this thing might be right on.

It's hardly "based on stats". It uses stats then arbitrarily adds in meaningless items such as "difficulty of defensive position" and "team winning percentage". Then it has categories "top batter", "top starting pitcher", "top reliever".

Explain to me what ones DEFENSIVE position or teams winning percentage has to do with who the top batter is?

That renders the entire exercise a joke.

Any ranking system that has Johan Santana ranked behind such Cy Young candidates as Ian Snell, Cole Hamels, Sergio Mitre, Rich Hill, Tom Gorzelanny, Chad Gaudin, Chris Young, and James Shields Is obviously flawed beyond belief.

Kevin Youkilis and Prince Fielder ahead of Pujols? ROFL.

Would you base even a fantasy baseball draft on these "rankings"?

DSpivack
06-11-2007, 05:51 PM
It's hardly "based on stats". It uses stats then arbitrarily adds in meaningless items such as "difficulty of defensive position" and "team winning percentage". Then it has categories "top batter", "top starting pitcher", "top reliever".

Explain to me what ones DEFENSIVE position or teams winning percentage has to do with who the top batter is?

That renders the entire exercise a joke.

Any ranking system that has Johan Santana ranked behind such Cy Young candidates as Ian Snell, Cole Hamels, Sergio Mitre, Rich Hill, Tom Gorzelanny, Chad Gaudin, Chris Young, and James Shields Is obviously flawed beyond belief.

Kevin Youkilis and Prince Fielder ahead of Pujols? ROFL.

Would you base even a fantasy baseball draft on these "rankings"?

Although I believe any ranking comparing a pitcher to a batter ridiculous, the only thing I can think of that even seems remotely fair or adequate is ERA+ and OPS+.

Brian26
06-11-2007, 09:28 PM
Name the flaws then.

I just dropped Julio Lugo from my fantasy team this weekend. Without looking up his updated stats, I recall he was batting something like .217. However, he had 17 stolen bases, which is why his fantasy rating was artificially inflated a bit. I'm assuming ESPN ratings are inflated for stolen bases too. If I had to pick between Lugo's speed (when he actually is able to get on base) compared to Thome's offensive numbers and how he affects the lineup around him, those two guys shouldn't be anywhere close.

chisoxmike
06-11-2007, 09:45 PM
ouch

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playerrating?type=batting&team=cws&position=all



What are the ESPN Player Ratings? (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2897967)

But the true question is, what about the Red Sox player rankings?

goon
06-11-2007, 09:59 PM
It's hardly "based on stats". It uses stats then arbitrarily adds in meaningless items such as "difficulty of defensive position" and "team winning percentage". Then it has categories "top batter", "top starting pitcher", "top reliever".

Explain to me what ones DEFENSIVE position or teams winning percentage has to do with who the top batter is?

That renders the entire exercise a joke.

Any ranking system that has Johan Santana ranked behind such Cy Young candidates as Ian Snell, Cole Hamels, Sergio Mitre, Rich Hill, Tom Gorzelanny, Chad Gaudin, Chris Young, and James Shields Is obviously flawed beyond belief.

Kevin Youkilis and Prince Fielder ahead of Pujols? ROFL.

Would you base even a fantasy baseball draft on these "rankings"?

I do fantasy baseball through ESPN and these rankings are fairly accurate. Just because guys like Pujols are ranked behind Fielder and Youkilis doesn't mean that he is a worse player, it just means he's having a worse season, which is true. Youkilis is batting like .350 with a ton or Runs scored and RBI's, Fielder leads the NL in HR, second in RBI's, solid Batting Average, right now he is better than Pujols.

As far as James Shields... the guy has the most innings pitched in the AL and is sporting a 3.04 ERA, a .96 WHIP, 86 K's and is 6-0 on the season. That is better than Santana. Rich Hill, even though I can't stand the guy, is having a fantastic season as well, Mitre had like 20 straight innings without giving up a run, he has an ERA of 1.59.

It's an accurate article.

MRM
06-11-2007, 10:40 PM
I do fantasy baseball through ESPN and these rankings are fairly accurate. Just because guys like Pujols are ranked behind Fielder and Youkilis doesn't mean that he is a worse player, it just means he's having a worse season, which is true. Youkilis is batting like .350 with a ton or Runs scored and RBI's, Fielder leads the NL in HR, second in RBI's, solid Batting Average, right now he is better than Pujols.

As far as James Shields... the guy has the most innings pitched in the AL and is sporting a 3.04 ERA, a .96 WHIP, 86 K's and is 6-0 on the season. That is better than Santana. Rich Hill, even though I can't stand the guy, is having a fantastic season as well, Mitre had like 20 straight innings without giving up a run, he has an ERA of 1.59.

It's an accurate article.

Give me a break. It's a formula that is supposed to rank the best hitters and pitchers in order that uses absurd criteria such as team winning % (which automatically gives an advantage to any Red Sox player and reduces any Royals player regardless of what they have actually done) And difficulty of defensive position (which has zero to do with how well a guy is hitting).

Any fool can look at a few stats and conclude that SO FAR Pujols has been outperformed by much lesser 1B or Santana by some mediocre pitchers. Nobody needs a formula to form a hindsight conclusion after 60 games. If that is the intention, then it's simply a waste of time. The sample size is so small it can't possibly be used as a predictor of future performance, hence it's useless as a formula and not even interesting as a curiosity.

goon
06-11-2007, 11:45 PM
Give me a break. It's a formula that is supposed to rank the best hitters and pitchers in order that uses absurd criteria such as team winning % (which automatically gives an advantage to any Red Sox player and reduces any Royals player regardless of what they have actually done) And difficulty of defensive position (which has zero to do with how well a guy is hitting).

Any fool can look at a few stats and conclude that SO FAR Pujols has been outperformed by much lesser 1B or Santana by some mediocre pitchers. Nobody needs a formula to form a hindsight conclusion after 60 games. If that is the intention, then it's simply a waste of time. The sample size is so small it can't possibly be used as a predictor of future performance, hence it's useless as a formula and not even interesting as a curiosity.

"Team winning percentage" and "defensive position" make-up a total 5% of how players are evaluated, so I don't know what you are complaining about, other than maybe just to complain about ESPN. The rest of the factors: runs, hits, steals, batting average, OBP, HR's, RBI's, etc. comprise the majority of factors and are much more vital in determining how a player ranks using their system. You're dismissing the formula because you disagree with one factor that has little to do with how the player is evaluated? Seems a bit extreme.

I really don't know why you are so upset and hardly see how half of a season could be considered a "sample size". I think the point of the ESPN player rater is for casual sports fans to look at and see which players are doing what this year. I know if I didn't watch a ton of baseball and saw Magglio at the top, I'd be surprised, even though he has clearly been the top offensive producer in the AL.

chaerulez
06-12-2007, 02:11 AM
It's hardly "based on stats". It uses stats then arbitrarily adds in meaningless items such as "difficulty of defensive position" and "team winning percentage". Then it has categories "top batter", "top starting pitcher", "top reliever".

Explain to me what ones DEFENSIVE position or teams winning percentage has to do with who the top batter is?

That renders the entire exercise a joke.

Any ranking system that has Johan Santana ranked behind such Cy Young candidates as Ian Snell, Cole Hamels, Sergio Mitre, Rich Hill, Tom Gorzelanny, Chad Gaudin, Chris Young, and James Shields Is obviously flawed beyond belief.

Kevin Youkilis and Prince Fielder ahead of Pujols? ROFL.

Would you base even a fantasy baseball draft on these "rankings"?

It's a single season only rating. No one is saying any of those pitchers are better than Santana overall, just they happen to having a better 1/3 of a season to this point. Which most of them are.

MRM
06-12-2007, 02:48 AM
It's a single season only rating. No one is saying any of those pitchers are better than Santana overall, just they happen to having a better 1/3 of a season to this point. Which most of them are.

Then of what use is it? If it was simply ESPN stating the obvious I'd have no problem with it. Instead it was prompted as a "formula" designed to tell us who the best players in the game are.

skobabe8
06-12-2007, 02:55 AM
It's a single season only rating. No one is saying any of those pitchers are better than Santana overall, just they happen to having a better 1/3 of a season to this point. Which most of them are.

Exactly! Up to this point, Yukilis has played better than Pujols. Hence he is ranked higher. Just one example that completely blows up your argument. Relax, its not a fantasy ranking. It's some guys view on who has been the best and most valuable so far. Thats why winning percentage is factored in. It doesnt have a real "use." Just something interesting to look at. Like I said before, I have hated ESPN over the last decade. But i think its ok to find something like this slightly interesting to look at.