espn rankings

 

notice team number 12 and compair it to fox sports' latest.

 

I also agree with the the number one team.

Wait, I forgot what league do the Mets play in?

 

The Sox would have 50 wins easy if they played in the NL.

Why the Tigers are not number 1 just boggles the mind...

Wait, I forgot what league do the Mets play in?

 

The Sox would have 50 wins easy if they played in the NL.

i agree to some extent...but give the mets a lot of credit. the sox havn't exactly played the toughest schedule. and detroit has flopped against the tougher teams

i agree to some extent...but give the mets a lot of credit. the sox havn't exactly played the toughest schedule. and detroit has flopped against the tougher teams

The Sox play an infinately thougher schedule than the Mets simply by being in the AL, facing Detroit, Minnesota and Cleveland 19 times a year is so much harder than Philly, Florida, Nats and Atlanta. I don't put a whole lot of stock into strengh of schedule either, when you play someone means a lot more than who you generally play. You can catch a team when they're incredibly hot or when they're sucking ass, thier final record is not going reflect this.

Edited June 19, 200619 yr by Kalapse

The Tigers are almost on top of the league in every reasonable statistic except hitting. This is also considering their best record in all of baseball I don't know how the hell (unless they put the sox there who are 5-1 against them) can they not be #1.

The Sox play an infinately thougher schedule than the Mets simply by being in the AL, facing Detroit, Minnesota and Cleveland 19 times a year is so much harder than Philly, Florida, Nats and Atlanta. I don't put a whole lot of stock into strengh of schedule either, when you play someone means a lot more than who you generally play. You can catch a team when they're incredibly hot or when they're sucking ass, they're final record is not going reflect this.

i understand what you're saying...but really if you look at the records minnesota is at .500 right now and cleveland is under 500. on paper those teams are better than the nats or marlins.

 

the counter argument is that those two teams are at .500 because the AL is tougher which i also agree with. but the mets have played better on the road and have been kicking the crap out of the s***ty teams as they should...the sox have had a bit of trouble with a couple of subpar teams.

 

yet i think if the sox keep playing like they did last week then they should be number 1

 

The Tigers are almost on top of the league in every reasonable statistic except hitting. This is also considering their best record in all of baseball I don't know how the hell (unless they put the sox there who are 5-1 against them) can they not be #1.

my argument is that they have ad about a hot month....they kind of "fell off" for a week or two a couple weeks into the season.

Mets beat the Phils and D'Backs. Sox went 6-1 against the Rangers and Reds. Tigers beat the mighty Rays and Cubs. The Tigers can't beat good teams. They choke. Next year is when I'll be worried about Detroit.

Mets beat the Phils and D'Backs. Sox went 6-1 against the Rangers and Reds. Tigers beat the mighty Rays and Cubs. The Tigers can't beat good teams. They choke. Next year is when I'll be worried about Detroit.

 

You are right, but there's no arguing on "rankings" they should be #1. That's my point.

You are right, but there's no arguing on "rankings" they should be #1. That's my point.

Yeah rankings are just "experts" opinion on who is the best team. EasternSeaboardPropagandoNetwork shockingly picked the Mets of New York as the best.

 

If the Sox play like they have the past week, we will win it all again. Just have to have this swagger in October again.

the truth is, whoever has a hot streak going into october wins. I mean if mets are playing their best ball, and continue too, they will win. Same wiht the sox

The Mets lost 2 of 3 at home to Baltimore this weekend, and play in the minor league. lol at them being #1.

I agree that the NL is horrible, but the Mets have been better than I thought they'd be.

They base the rankings off what the team did that week, and last week the Mets did not lose. Thats why the A's jumped up 8 spots in one week as well.

 

I am sure the Sox will be back on top for the next ranking.

Edited June 19, 200619 yr by RME JICO

Why the Tigers are not number 1 just boggles the mind...

 

Part of it is that they are 3-10 against Us, Red Sox and Yankees.

it seems like these rankings are always about teams playing to whatever their own full potential is. so if yr a defending champ, that bar is going to be very high - and i know no one on this board thinks we've met that yet.

Edited June 19, 200619 yr by Princess Dye

Part of it is that they are 3-10 against Us, Red Sox and Yankees.

 

Ding, ding, ding!

 

The Tigers aren't #1 on any of the power rankings that I've seen, and this is the obvious reason. Nobody is more impressed with the Tigers than I am, but until you show that you can beat the big boys, you're not gonna get the top spot.

I have this feeling that ESPN has been waiting all year for the "Amazin's" to have the highest winning percentage, even if just for 1 game, to put them at #1.

Wait, I forgot what league do the Mets play in?

 

The Sox would have 50 wins easy if they played in the NL.

 

 

Are you sure about that? If the Sox played in the NL, Thome would not be a factor (and if he played, then Konerko wouldn't). The fact is the Mets look damn good and are on par with the Sox and Tigers right now and the rankings reflect that.

Are you sure about that? If the Sox played in the NL, Thome would not be a factor (and if he played, then Konerko wouldn't). The fact is the Mets look damn good and are on par with the Sox and Tigers right now and the rankings reflect that.

good catch...i did not even think about that

The Tigers are 41-16 against teams not named the Yankees and White Sox

 

Can we just put that in a banner atop SoxTalk???

Are you sure about that? If the Sox played in the NL, Thome would not be a factor (and if he played, then Konerko wouldn't). The fact is the Mets look damn good and are on par with the Sox and Tigers right now and the rankings reflect that.

You also have to remember that the team would likely be built differently as well. We didn't have Thome last year did we? No, we had Everett and Thomas at DH which is hardly anything that I'd be upset about losing. The fact of the matter is, this pitching staff from top to bottom would absolutely dominate in the National League, there isn't a single staff in the NL that even comes close to the Sox and however the batting order would look, probably with Rowand in CF and Gio/Haigwood in the minors, I am certain this team would absolutely wreck in the NL.

You are right, but there's no arguing on "rankings" they should be #1. That's my point.

 

The whole point of power rankings is to look past the records and stats and determine who is truly the best team. Based on the Tigers poor showing against the White Sox and Yankees, one could easily conclude that they are not the best team in baseball.

The fact of the matter is, this pitching staff from top to bottom would absolutely dominate in the National League

 

Garland and Garcia would've had trouble dominating a AAA team with the way they've been pitching so far. Agreed that, overall, Sox pitching would fare better in the NL, but the back of the rotation would still get hit.

The Tigers are almost on top of the league in every reasonable statistic except hitting. This is also considering their best record in all of baseball I don't know how the hell (unless they put the sox there who are 5-1 against them) can they not be #1.

 

 

It might have something to do with the fact that the WS are 23-9 against teams with current record of .500 or better versus Detroit 's 19-15 against .500 or better.