ESPN power rankings

[staegrac]

I check out the power rankings every monday just to see where we stand and Kruk annoys me...he must hate the tigers and is in love with the brewers...granted the brewers are good but I dont think any team is hotter that us at this point. He still says the brewers are red hot...IDK it seems that they have cooled off as of late going 3 game below .500 thus far in september

 

[Thumb]

Power Rankings are only as good as the people who write them, and usually those people are biased.

 

[packersfantheo]

The tigers got moved up to 4. I'm not sure how you can complain about that.

 

[Thumb]

The tigers got moved up to 4. I'm not sure how you can complain about that.

How about the Red Sox still being ranked higher then us while they went 3-7, while we went 9-1 in the last 10.

Power Rankings are not supposed to follow the standings, or else they would be pointless, it's supposed to be about how well the teams are during that week, and overall at that point in the season.

I challenge anyone to give me a non-bullshit reason to put the Red Sox over the Tigers this week.

 

[Mitchrapp]

They play the Rays and I forget who else while we played ChiCrap and the rest of BS central. Its a possible reason, no?

 

[Thumb]

Mitch[/color]]They play the Rays and I forget who else while we played ChiCrap and the rest of BS central. Its a possible reason, no?

But they still lost.

The reason is Bristol, Ct. is closer to Boston than Detroit.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Maybe but you wanted a plausible reason and I think I gave you one. In the end, they mean nothing.

 

[mjsb2]

If you say power rankings shouldn't be based on standings because that would be pointless, how are they not pointless if you base them on the standings over the past two weeks or 10 games, or whatever set point in recent history?

 

[jmakula87]

Boston lost 2 out of 3 to the Blue Jays before their series against Boston. They are very close in record, and Detroit has looked a lot better, even if it has been against lesser opponents for the most part.

But yeah, I quit looking at the power rankings because they usually just annoyed me. I feel like there isn't too much effort put into them.

 

[mjsb2]

Power rankings are pretty pointless.

 

[Mitchrapp]

If you say power rankings shouldn't be based on standings because that would be pointless, how are they not pointless if you base them on the standings over the past two weeks or 10 games, or whatever set point in recent history?

Hows a team playing currently. Are they hot, I suppose. Overall being pointless because we all know who has the best record so why have them?

 

[Thumb]

If you say power rankings shouldn't be based on standings because that would be pointless, how are they not pointless if you base them on the standings over the past two weeks or 10 games, or whatever set point in recent history?

It's like Mitch said, it's supposed to be a ranking of who's hot, not who's in what place.

If you just use overall standings then you don't need power rankings because the standings are them.

And for what it's worth, as hot as we have been, last week they actually dropped us from 7 to 8, right after we swept the Sox.

 

[mjsb2]

My point was that while it is pointless to base the power rankings on the standings, it is equally pointless to base the power rankings on recent standings, which is how it would be based if you did it by whose the hottest team over the given period between rankings.

 

[mjsb2]

My point was that while it is pointless to base the power rankings on the standings, it is equally pointless to base the power rankings on recent standings, which is how it would be based if you did it by whose the hottest team over the given period between rankings.

Basically I agree, power rankings are pointless either way.

 

[Thumb]

Why would it be pointless to rank team by how well they're playing over a short time frame?

That's supposed to be the idea behind power rankings, they come out once a week...so you base it off the previous week.

 

[boogerlovejoy]

If you say power rankings shouldn't be based on standings because that would be pointless, how are they not pointless if you base them on the standings over the past two weeks or 10 games, or whatever set point in recent history?

It's like Mitch said, it's supposed to be a ranking of who's hot, not who's in what place.

If you just use overall standings then you don't need power rankings because the standings are them.

And for what it's worth, as hot as we have been, last week they actually dropped us from 7 to 8, right after we swept the Sox.

So based on your opinion, if the Orioles win their next 10 and no other team in baseball goes better than 7-3 in that period....they should be #1 in the power rankings??

 

[tomdalton22]

It's like Mitch said, it's supposed to be a ranking of who's hot, not who's in what place.

If you just use overall standings then you don't need power rankings because the standings are them.

And for what it's worth, as hot as we have been, last week they actually dropped us from 7 to 8, right after we swept the Sox.

So based on your opinion, if the Orioles win their next 10 and no other team in baseball goes better than 7-3 in that period....they should be #1 in the power rankings??

Exactly. If it were just the past 10 games FL would be 4th in the power rankings since they are 7-3

 

[kalinesboy]

Power rankings tend to reflect the winning percentages for the year.....so they get a bit boring, as is this thread. If this were a drinking game I would use "pointless" as the trigger word to down a Faygo Rock and Rye. Thing is, because I'd have to travel back to Michigan to get said Rock and Rye, perhaps I should start up that game. For some reason they wont ship RandR down here in KY with all the other Faygo products. So yes...use pointless a few more times.

 

[Mitchrapp]

It's like Mitch said, it's supposed to be a ranking of who's hot, not who's in what place.

If you just use overall standings then you don't need power rankings because the standings are them.

And for what it's worth, as hot as we have been, last week they actually dropped us from 7 to 8, right after we swept the Sox.

So based on your opinion, if the Orioles win their next 10 and no other team in baseball goes better than 7-3 in that period....they should be #1 in the power rankings??

I don't think thats what he meant. And you know that.

 

[Thumb]

It's like Mitch said, it's supposed to be a ranking of who's hot, not who's in what place.

If you just use overall standings then you don't need power rankings because the standings are them.

And for what it's worth, as hot as we have been, last week they actually dropped us from 7 to 8, right after we swept the Sox.

So based on your opinion, if the Orioles win their next 10 and no other team in baseball goes better than 7-3 in that period....they should be #1 in the power rankings??

No not #1, but they should climb a significant amount, 10 wins in a row is not a common thing.

Rankings usually take some bearing on the previous week's ranking also.

The Tigers were 8 last week on ESPN, after being dropped a spot from 7.

This week we leapfrogged Arizona, Texas, Atlanta, and Milwaukee, none of them were really as horrible as Boston except Atlanta.

Yet Boston got to hold on to the same spot (3) that they had last week, while the braves dropped 2 spots.

That's simply east-coast Red Sox bias.