PDA

View Full Version : ESPN Power Rankings



fisch11
04-24-2006, 07:51 PM
Reds 17th, up from 19th.

"The Reds have scored a major league best 107 runs. The Reds have allowed a major league worst 102 runs. Yet they have 10 wins."

reds44
04-24-2006, 07:54 PM
Don't we have 12 wins?

bengalred
04-24-2006, 07:54 PM
I don't put too much stock into those rankings. I don't care how we win games, as long as we win.

kaldaniels
04-24-2006, 07:58 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/04/24/power.rankings/index.html

Si.com has Cincy #8....4 NL Central teams in the top 8!!!

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 08:16 PM
Don't we have 12 wins?

The power rankings are as of 4/21

redsfanmia
04-24-2006, 08:32 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/04/24/power.rankings/index.html

Si.com has Cincy #8....4 NL Central teams in the top 8!!!
This again illustrates how out of touch SI is.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 09:23 PM
This again illustrates how out of touch SI is.

It actually shows how out of touch ESPN is. SI has it right on. If you go by win/loss record, the Astros, Reds, Cards, and Cubs are in the top 5 teams in the NL. Only 3 teams in the AL have a better record than the Astros, Reds, Cards, and Cubs.

redsfanmia
04-24-2006, 09:46 PM
It actually shows how out of touch ESPN is. SI has it right on. If you go by win/loss record, the Astros, Reds, Cards, and Cubs are in the top 5 teams in the NL. Only 3 teams in the AL have a better record than the Astros, Reds, Cards, and Cubs.
No offense, but win/loss record doesnt matter much in the first 20 games of the season.

acredsfan
04-24-2006, 09:54 PM
This doesn't illustrate how out of touch either one is, what this illustrates is what they created the power rankings to do, generate business and get people talking. To me, baseball is a great sport because there can be such a debate over who is the strongest team. Baseball games are won in all different fashions. A team can be tearing up the opposition on offense and shutting them down on defense, or a team can be like the reds and tearing up the opposition on offense with less than stellar defense and pitching, or a team can be winning seemingly by luck in 1 or 2 run games that are low scoring. The question then becomes who is the most powerful, of course the first answer would be the one tearing it up on offense and dominating on defense and pitching, but after that which one takes over? At the end of the year the power rankings mean nothing, the win loss record means everything, but during the season for some reason the media thinks power rankings actually mean something, when they don't in reality. At the end of the day, a win is a win and a loss is a loss, whoever has the best ratio of wins to losses is the winner.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 09:55 PM
Then what does matter? Win and loss records is all that matters anytime during the season.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 09:58 PM
for some reason the media thinks power rankings actually mean something, when they don't in reality. At the end of the day, a win is a win and a loss is a loss, whoever has the best ratio of wins to losses is the winner.

Power rankings are fun to look at, but they don't mean anything if there isn't any correlation to the win/loss record.

redsmetz
04-24-2006, 10:13 PM
No offense, but win/loss record doesnt matter much in the first 20 games of the season.

I'm guessing the 1999 Reds would have liked to have had just one extra win at that end of the season. A win's a win and they all help.

The Baumer
04-24-2006, 10:31 PM
It doesn't matter if it's been only 20 games. The rankings are supposed to be the best teams at the moment, not the best teams 5 months from now. At any rate, SI was "in touch" this pre-season when they ranked the Reds 6th in the central.

kaldaniels
04-24-2006, 11:30 PM
This again illustrates how out of touch SI is.

Or are you perhaps the one out of touch. The Power Rankings thru the first 20 games are what they are...the power rankings thru the first 20 games. You have to acknowledge that the argument can be made that the first 4 teams in the NL central are in the top 8...although I would say top 10-12 in my opinion. However, I would HARDLY call SI out of touch.

zombie-a-go-go
04-25-2006, 07:52 AM
I'd make a joke here about the Reds having a good shot at a BCS bid here if I were funny, or the joke wasn't played out, but I'm not and it is, so instead I'll just sit here and bring this ultimately meaningless post to a close - not with a bang, but with a whisper. As they say.

smith288
04-25-2006, 09:19 AM
No offense, but win/loss record doesnt matter much in the first 20 games of the season.

Does these wins not count when we are around the 100 games played mark? Just wondering.

Strikes Out Looking
04-25-2006, 09:23 AM
I think wins matter. I think the Reds need as many as possible, and should try to get them any possible way--be it by good pitching, overwhelming offense or any combination of the two. I'd rather be 13-7 after 20 games than the usual 7-13.

redsfanmia
04-25-2006, 03:55 PM
Does these wins not count when we are around the 100 games played mark? Just wondering.
All I am saying is that I will be a believer when the Reds are 10 or 12 games over 500 at the 100 game mark. I have been burned buy good starts before. Look at Houston last year they were terrible at the beggining of the season and then turned it around. I am just saying that the power rankings dont matter at all. Every team in the league will have a good 20 game stretch.

SeeinRed
04-25-2006, 04:34 PM
Really, although fun to look at, "Power Rankings" are useless in Baseball if you're using them like they do in football. Football power rankings work because there are only 16 games in a season, and the teams are forced to put forth their best effort every game. The stronger team usually does win, and there really aren't many huge surprises. Baseball, on the other hand, is not as predictable from game to game, and is so streak oriented, that it renders power rankings useless if you are looking for some long-term oriented prediction. I'm not saying football games are completely predictable, but they are to some degree.

Aceking
04-25-2006, 06:22 PM
Peter King's NFL power rankings (the fine fifteen) had the Chargers at #2 through most of the season (even when they had a losing record). They of course, missed the playoffs.

Power Rankings are fun, but I put no actual stock in them.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 06:24 PM
I'd make a joke here about the Reds having a good shot at a BCS bid here if I were funny, or the joke wasn't played out, but I'm not and it is, so instead I'll just sit here and bring this ultimately meaningless post to a close - not with a bang, but with a whisper. As they say.

Welcome back, Zombie. I know you don't really have the opportunity to visit RedsZone much anymore. Nice to see you're making the best use of your time.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 06:25 PM
I'd trust Si's take about as much as I would my ability to shoe a horse.

GAC
04-25-2006, 06:34 PM
No offense, but win/loss record doesnt matter much in the first 20 games of the season.

So a 4-16 start is irrelevant as compared to a 16-4 start?

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 06:36 PM
I'd trust Si's take about as much as I would my ability to shoe a horse.

I don't care much for either SI or ESPN's take on things. Although, by looking at the rankings, SI's rankings seem to correlate much closer to the actual standings.

LincolnparkRed
04-25-2006, 06:41 PM
No offense, but win/loss record doesnt matter much in the first 20 games of the season.

I imagine Pirate fans might disagree with that one

NastyBoy
04-26-2006, 12:18 AM
Dunkel Index has the a bit higher.

http://www.dunkelindex.com/MLB_Baseball_Rankings.asp