Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated)   Kansas City Royals lose 11 in a row; move up 4 spots in this weeks MLB Power Rankings   ( sportsillustrated.cnn.com) divider line
    More: Fail, power rankings, Kansas City Royals, American League, Texas, the dozens, Texas Rangers, Major League Baseball, standings  
•       •       •

1743 clicks; posted to Sports » on 24 Apr 2012 at 12:49 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-24 09:30:15 AM  
This year is going to be different! 0.500 baby! Yeah!

/shoots self in head
 
2012-04-24 09:47:40 AM  
The Kansas City rotation remains: Bruce Chen, Danny Duffy, Luke Hochevar, Luis Mendoza, Jonathan Sanchez.

Until this situation changes, the fact that their lineup looks decent does not make them the 7th best team in baseball.

"You will probably notice that these Power Rankings don't look like most other Power Rankings you'll see around the web, as our system is based not on the current standings or a gut feeling about team quality, but on how well they've performed at the underlying traits that predict future performance better than wins and losses."

That's a valuable thing to look at... but not if you only consider 2012. They're trying to use a weird definition of "Power Rankings" where we only look at how the team has performed over the first ~10% of the season, and ignore the fact that, I don't know, Nate Schierholtz is just a little unlikely to hit .372/.404/.744 for the season, and Ross Detwiler probably isn't Bob Gibson.
 
2012-04-24 10:04:25 AM  

Mentat: This year is going to be different! 0.500 baby! Yeah!

/shoots self in head


Hey, the stadium looks good though. There's solar panels now!!

/shoots self in head
 
2012-04-24 10:15:02 AM  
Mike Moustakas is hitting pretty well and is on both of my fantasy teams. So...you know...there's that.
 
2012-04-24 10:17:09 AM  
Definitive power rankings based on wins above replacement? That's...actually pretty smart.

I'm OK with this.
 
2012-04-24 10:29:26 AM  

FreakinB: Mike Moustakas is hitting pretty well and is on both of my fantasy teams. So...you know...there's that.


I just looked at the stats. Alex Gordon has struck out 20 times already, and they have 3 guys that have already have double digit strike outs and none of them are Jeff Francoeur. This thing may get real ugly.
 
2012-04-24 10:42:16 AM  
WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin
 
2012-04-24 10:47:32 AM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin


Say it agi'n, y'all
 
2012-04-24 11:05:00 AM  
Well, this thread should be fun
 
2012-04-24 11:10:17 AM  

mitchcumstein1: I just looked at the stats. Alex Gordon has struck out 20 times already


He's seeing the ball fine-- the power's there, he also has 9 walks, and he's always struck out a fair bit.

He's just been unlucky-- despite a higher-than-normal line-drive rate, balls aren't dropping for hits. It happens, especially over a stretch of three weeks. I wouldn't worry about him yet.

mitchcumstein1: they have 3 guys that have already have double digit strike outs and none of them are Jeff Francoeur. This thing may get real ugly.


The same thing is true of the Rangers. The Yankees have four. The Cardinals have five. Cleveland has five. The Braves have four. The Blue Jays have five. The Red Sox have three. You know what these teams in common? They're the highest-scoring teams in baseball. Strikeout rates aren't a good measure of offensive talent.

Meanwhile the Royals are ... 28th in baseball in striking out. The team that strikes out the least is the Giants, and I wouldn't suggest trying to copy their formula for offense.

If you're worried about the Royals, it should be because they give away too many outs. They don't walk much (22nd in BB). They're stupid on the basepaths (10 SB vs. 8 CS). They're 24th in defense, in terms of turning batted balls into outs, which is going to magnify their pitching woes.

Lots of reasons to worry. Not striking out at a dead-ball rate is not one of them.
 
2012-04-24 11:41:18 AM  

chimp_ninja: The team that strikes out the least is the Giants, and I wouldn't suggest trying to copy their formula for offense.


They've got that part right though. I worry a bit about drafting Posey since they have no real incentive to pitch to him. Iannetta has proven a good backup/utility man though.
 
2012-04-24 11:46:14 AM  

chimp_ninja: He's seeing the ball fine-- the power's there, he also has 9 walks, and he's always struck out a fair bit.

He's just been unlucky-- despite a higher-than-normal line-drive rate, balls aren't dropping for hits. It happens, especially over a stretch of three weeks. I wouldn't worry about him yet.


I always worry about him, there's a lot more evidence of him being mediocre than good.

chimp_ninja: Strikeout rates aren't a good measure of offensive talent.


No, I think the strike outs, and all the other wonderful stats you have, point to shiatty coaching, frankly. The 10 game losing streaks also point to that too, I think.

Lots of reasons to worry. Not striking out at a dead-ball rate is not one of them.

No, I would say that the fact that I could be their 4th starter is a much larger issue.
 
2012-04-24 11:52:53 AM  

mitchcumstein1: No, I would say that the fact that I could be their 4th starter is a much larger issue.


And yet the Twins starters have an ERA 2 runs higher. The Senators rotation is farking scary though. It's like the Phillies last year, yet nobody is talking about their potential.
 
2012-04-24 11:56:30 AM  

GAT_00: And yet the Twins starters have an ERA 2 runs higher.


Check back in a couple months.
 
2012-04-24 12:37:22 PM  

mitchcumstein1: No, I think the strike outs, and all the other wonderful stats you have, point to shiatty coaching, frankly. The 10 game losing streaks also point to that too, I think.


Do you really believe coaching is that big of a factor in baseball? Joe Torre didn't do squat as a manager with the Cardinals back when the team didn't spend any money, and then he goes to the Yankees and wins 4 world series. Did he all of a sudden become smarter? Or did he have better players?
 
2012-04-24 12:57:22 PM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin


Say it again, naw

Those rankings are just awful. I know its more of a mathematical approach, but sometimes you have to remember the players aren't drones in a sim.
 
2012-04-24 01:14:46 PM  
WAR! good god y'all! What is it good for?
ABSOLUTELY NUTHIN!
 
2012-04-24 01:16:05 PM  
The Tigers at 14? Hogwash.
 
2012-04-24 01:16:50 PM  
So, the Jays go in to KC and sweep the hapless Royals in a 4 game series. The Royals are #7 in the ranking and the Jays are #20. Makes perfect sense.
 
2012-04-24 01:16:51 PM  
White Sox fan here. 22 last week, 8 this week? What are you smoking. The White Sox will be a .500 team at best.

One fluke perfect game doesn't make a team.
 
2012-04-24 01:16:57 PM  

chimp_ninja: The Kansas City rotation remains: Bruce Chen, Danny Duffy, Luke Hochevar, Luis Mendoza, Jonathan Sanchez.


Chen is pretty under-rated. I don't mean he should be an ace; but the guy is a legit pitcher.
 
2012-04-24 01:18:07 PM  

R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: The Tigers at 14? Hogwash.


Exactly. Tied with the White Sox for first. Sox are 8, Tigers are 14? Come on. I've been known to be irrational about my White Sox... but the Tigers are better. The end.
 
2012-04-24 01:20:04 PM  
FTFA:


San Diego Padres
WAR Winning Percentage: .386; Current Winning Percentage: .294; WAR Wins: 7; Current Wins: 5


Milwaukee Brewers
WAR Winning Percentage: .382; Current Winning Percentage: .438; WAR Wins: 6; Current Wins: 7


Can someone who understands the advanced stats better than I do, explain why the Padres are ranked above the Brewers based on these numbers?
 
2012-04-24 01:20:55 PM  
WAR is an ok stat, but not useful to compare entire freaking teams. The author of this article needs a swirly.
 
2012-04-24 01:21:28 PM  
But their offensive line of .254/.316/.408 is pretty close to league average and their pitching hasn't been disastrous


So, their offense will probably pick up over the next month, but I don't see how their pitching overall can do anything beyond "not be totally disastrous" for the entire season.

I thought the Royals would be a sexy pick by taking the over on their 76.5 win total projection, but a .500 team this year I think is their ceiling.
 
2012-04-24 01:22:01 PM  

chimp_ninja: The Kansas City rotation remains: Bruce Chen, Danny Duffy, Luke Hochevar, Luis Mendoza, Jonathan Sanchez.

Until this situation changes, the fact that their lineup looks decent does not make them the 7th best team in baseball.

"You will probably notice that these Power Rankings don't look like most other Power Rankings you'll see around the web, as our system is based not on the current standings or a gut feeling about team quality, but on how well they've performed at the underlying traits that predict future performance better than wins and losses."

That's a valuable thing to look at... but not if you only consider 2012. They're trying to use a weird definition of "Power Rankings" where we only look at how the team has performed over the first ~10% of the season, and ignore the fact that, I don't know, Nate Schierholtz is just a little unlikely to hit .372/.404/.744 for the season, and Ross Detwiler probably isn't Bob Gibson.


what happened to Bannister?
 
2012-04-24 01:23:54 PM  

GAT_00: Definitive power rankings based on wins above replacement? That's...actually pretty smart.

I'm OK with this.


I'm not. WAR works for individual players, teams not so much. Case in point: the Royals - off to one of the worst starts in their history (and that's saying something) are ranked 7th. Do you think that makes sense?
 
2012-04-24 01:27:01 PM  

roc6783: Can someone who understands the advanced stats better than I do, explain why the Padres are ranked above the Brewers based on these numbers?


Because Ryan Braun is a cheating cheater
 
2012-04-24 01:28:02 PM  
Pirates have a better record than seven other teams, still ranked last.

/ sounds about right though
 
2012-04-24 01:28:03 PM  
Yet they have a slumping Brewers squad in 25th- Fark you statasses.
 
2012-04-24 01:30:05 PM  

gunsmack: Pirates have a better record than seven other teams, still ranked last.


Give it a few weeks...
 
2012-04-24 01:31:34 PM  

roc6783: FTFA:


San Diego Padres
WAR Winning Percentage: .386; Current Winning Percentage: .294; WAR Wins: 7; Current Wins: 5


Milwaukee Brewers
WAR Winning Percentage: .382; Current Winning Percentage: .438; WAR Wins: 6; Current Wins: 7

Can someone who understands the advanced stats better than I do, explain why the Padres are ranked above the Brewers based on these numbers?


See GATT's post above. I believe that seven is larger than six.
 
2012-04-24 01:31:37 PM  
kc is the absolute last place team in the league. not only did they go up four spots, it was to number seven. seven. this is how you can tell that they're just trolling...
 
2012-04-24 01:32:16 PM  

roc6783: Can someone who understands the advanced stats better than I do, explain why the Padres are ranked above the Brewers based on these numbers?


Because these aren't standings. The Padres has a higher WAR, suggesting they are the better team. They've been unlucky so far, but if these WAR values stay the way they are, the smart money would be on the Padres to have a better record at the end of the year.

There are a few problems with the above theory (as chimp_ninja points out), but that's the thinking.
 
2012-04-24 01:32:45 PM  

scandalrag: See GATT's post above. I believe that seven is larger than six.


Well what kind of math bullsh*t are you trying to bring into this? I haven't done calculus in years.
 
2012-04-24 01:33:43 PM  

downstairs: R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: The Tigers at 14? Hogwash.

Exactly. Tied with the White Sox for first. Sox are 8, Tigers are 14? Come on. I've been known to be irrational about my White Sox... but the Tigers are better. The end.


Not only that, but the Indians and Royals are also ranked ahead off the Tigers. Does anybody really think the Tigers are the 4th-best team in the division?
 
2012-04-24 01:35:32 PM  
Orioles are best team in all of Major League Baseball... for teams...in Baltimore...
 
2012-04-24 01:36:34 PM  

scandalrag: I believe that seven is larger than six.


If you got out of your mother's basement and actually watched the games, you'd know that 7 is not larger than 6. Or something
 
2012-04-24 01:40:13 PM  

NutznGum: GAT_00: Definitive power rankings based on wins above replacement? That's...actually pretty smart.

I'm OK with this.

I'm not. WAR works for individual players, teams not so much. Case in point: the Royals - off to one of the worst starts in their history (and that's saying something) are ranked 7th. Do you think that makes sense?


It works better than anything else I can think of as a definitive tool to measure how good teams are when normal rankings are heavily biased and trended towards short-term trends, not long term.
 
2012-04-24 01:44:29 PM  
That list right there is the reason WAR is a stupid stat.

KC, who has 3 WINS, is 7th best in WAR. To all those ESPN douchbags who look at all the new stats versus straight up W-L...fark you.

For years I have seen the hacks at ESPN (Neyer) overvalue guys who pile up numbers and dismiss the word 'clutch' as a fake, unmeasrable stat.

For example, being a Cardinal fan I have watched Matt Holiday put up decent numbers 20 HR, 80 RBI but would never call the guy clutch. He gets alot of those numbers in bunches and in blowouts, yet because his stats look the way they do, his WAR is 5 or higher every year.

WAR is also biased based on a crappy group of players at that posistion. I think it was last year, or the year before, where Victorino had a really high WAR only because the rest of the CF crop in the NL was so shiatty. At one point Colby Rasmus was second in the league in WAR for NL CF and he was hitting 230.
 
2012-04-24 01:46:28 PM  

scandalrag: roc6783: FTFA:


San Diego Padres
WAR Winning Percentage: .386; Current Winning Percentage: .294; WAR Wins: 7; Current Wins: 5


Milwaukee Brewers
WAR Winning Percentage: .382; Current Winning Percentage: .438; WAR Wins: 6; Current Wins: 7

Can someone who understands the advanced stats better than I do, explain why the Padres are ranked above the Brewers based on these numbers?

See GATT's post above. I believe that seven is larger than six.


So statistical "wins" count more than real wins, gotcha. Snark at rankings, not you. Thanks, at you.


GAT_00: NutznGum: GAT_00: Definitive power rankings based on wins above replacement? That's...actually pretty smart.

I'm OK with this.

I'm not. WAR works for individual players, teams not so much. Case in point: the Royals - off to one of the worst starts in their history (and that's saying something) are ranked 7th. Do you think that makes sense?

It works better than anything else I can think of as a definitive tool to measure how good teams are when normal rankings are heavily biased and trended towards short-term trends, not long term.


Isn't the whole point of Power Rankings to rank who is doing better in the short run and the season as a whole, rather than a predictor of future success? I get that this Power Ranking is not doing that, but doesn't this Power Ranking totally miss the point then?
 
2012-04-24 01:47:15 PM  

GAT_00: NutznGum: GAT_00: Definitive power rankings based on wins above replacement? That's...actually pretty smart.

I'm OK with this.

I'm not. WAR works for individual players, teams not so much. Case in point: the Royals - off to one of the worst starts in their history (and that's saying something) are ranked 7th. Do you think that makes sense?

It works better than anything else I can think of as a definitive tool to measure how good teams are when normal rankings are heavily biased and trended towards short-term trends, not long term.


When the system ranks the worst team in baseball at 7th, its broken.

Meh, its irrelevant anyway. The only rankings that count are the standings, everything else is just fodder for the stats geeks.
 
2012-04-24 01:50:11 PM  

bluenote13: dismiss the word 'clutch' as a fake, unmeasrable stat.


You misunderstand: it's not that clutch is unmeasurable; it's that it's unrepeatable. It's not a skill.

roc6783: Isn't the whole point of Power Rankings to rank who is doing better in the short run and the season as a whole, rather than a predictor of future success?


If people could agree on a definition for power rankings, I doubt we'd have so many threads on them.
 
2012-04-24 01:51:04 PM  
#3! And we've got math backing it up! lol
 
2012-04-24 02:07:08 PM  

roc6783: Isn't the whole point of Power Rankings to rank who is doing better in the short run and the season as a whole, rather than a predictor of future success? I get that this Power Ranking is not doing that, but doesn't this Power Ranking totally miss the point then?


You're right. This is like calling the Sagarin ratings "Power Rankings". Realistically, they should just be eyeball tests. To the eyeball, you look badass. I don't care if you lost 3 in a row because of a few errors and your closer shiat the bed, because you just looked farking good.
 
2012-04-24 02:11:11 PM  

machoprogrammer: WAR is an ok stat, but not useful to compare entire freaking teams. The author of this article needs a swirly.


Seriously. They have a team with 12 wins juuuuuust above a team with 3. If the nats ever find a consistent closer, they'd be unstoppable.
 
2012-04-24 02:14:01 PM  
i2.cdn.turner.com

We're one spot below WHO?!?!?!?! Who do I have to blow???
 
2012-04-24 02:24:13 PM  
If KC is 3-13 with good stats, just getting unlucky, i can't imagine what their record is gonna be when they start really sucking.

Also, Boston's team ERA/ pitching is so bad, I may just switch to being a hometown Nats fan this year. Yes, a Boston fan going all fair weather for this season.
 
2012-04-24 02:25:26 PM  

merkey88: machoprogrammer: WAR is an ok stat, but not useful to compare entire freaking teams. The author of this article needs a swirly.

Seriously. They have a team with 12 wins juuuuuust above a team with 3. If the nats ever find a consistent closer, they'd be unstoppable.


Matt Caps is available. What are you offering?
 
2012-04-24 02:26:07 PM  
I'm all for the new stats in baseball, taking things like RBI and wins (for pitchers) and making them obsolete is fine with me. That said, these power rankings are an abomination. At no point this year will the Royals be a top ten team.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report