Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Good old USA Today -- is anyone else furious about the destruction of Baseball Weekly? -- has their first Power Rankings of the new year, as always featuring plenty of questionable rankings: the panel is very impressed by the Phillies, and the annually-overrated Mets apparently improved while I wasn't looking.

I agree that the best teams are in the AL, but I think the Twins got dissed, as did the Giants. 16th is reasonable for the Jays, as I'm an optimist who thinks 88-90 wins is possible, but that still makes them about 7th best in their league and no better than 13th overall. At the bottom, as much fun as it is to ridicule a team associated with Selig and Ash, I think Detroit or Tampa or K.C. (quick, for 500 points, name a Royals starter) could finish behind the Brewers if they played the same schedule.

Another chewable snack; the entree tomorrow is the HoF election, with the ESPN Blue Jays Hot Stove Heater as an appetizer.
Who's #1? | 19 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Mick - Monday, January 06 2003 @ 12:47 PM EST (#99970) #
quick, for 500 points, name a Royals starter

Runelvys Hernandez.

After the border exchange rate, what do I get, about 280 points?
Pistol - Monday, January 06 2003 @ 03:42 PM EST (#99971) #
Actually, I think the Twins were rated a little too high. They beat up on the AL Central, but only played .500 against the rest of the AL.

FWIW, I think the Mets were fairly rated. Adding Glavine in place of whoever filled the 5th starter spot last year is worth a few wins, and Floyd over anyone else in the OF is an improvement. There's also likely to be some rebound from the other players (most notably Alomar). The only problem for the Mets is the loss of Fonzie. They were awful last year and still had 82 wins. I don't think 90 wins is out of the question for this team.

To me it looks like there's 3 tiers in baseball. The upper 12 teams that will compete for the 8 playoff spots, the middle 11 teams that are either on their way up or down, and the bottom 8 teams that are just really bad.
_Scott Lucas - Monday, January 06 2003 @ 04:09 PM EST (#99972) #
Mark Gubicza. Oh, you mean a current starter.

Kansas City has to be the worst franchise in baseball. Sure, Milwaukee, Tampa and Detroit are awful, but at least they're taking (baby) steps to improve. KC appears to have no plan at all.

I'd move Anaheim down a few spots. Teams with a sharp increase in wins from one year to the next tend to backslide the following year.

FWIW, the Mets won 75 games last year, not 82.
_Geoff North - Monday, January 06 2003 @ 07:07 PM EST (#99973) #
I think Baltimore might contest that worst franchise thing... Maybe I'm a little unstable, but I actually wish (at least a little) that Baltimore and Tampa were in a different division, that the Jays were in the strongest division. I guess I just like races and competition and excitement, as well as the satisfaction of knowing when they win it all, that it was against the best. Not that New York and Boston are some kind of shabby opposition.
Pistol - Tuesday, January 07 2003 @ 11:12 AM EST (#99974) #
Hmmm, I must have been thinking of the Mets pythagoras record, which was also 80 and not 82.
Coach - Tuesday, January 07 2003 @ 12:14 PM EST (#99975) #
Geoff, the sad thing is that Omar Daal keeps the O's ahead of K.C. and Tampa. If we're talking about impossible realignment fantasies, I'd like the British soccer relegation system, where two of the worst MLB teams would be replaced each year by the best in AAA; imagine the excitement in places like Buffalo. If the top six AL teams switched with the worst in the NL, you'd have a Premier League and First Division right there.
Coach - Tuesday, January 07 2003 @ 12:17 PM EST (#99976) #
Mick stole 500 (Can.) points -- still a little over 300 today -- on a technicality. I should have asked for a competent Royals starter, or one with a snowball's chance of averaging 6 IP/start, or one with a season of experience. Corey Thurman would be their ace.
_Michael Misfeld - Wednesday, April 23 2003 @ 03:14 AM EDT (#99977) #
I would just like to say that after reading all of your anti-Royals rhetoric, I would like to point out that Royals are 15-3, the 2nd best record in Baseball. Mike McDougal is leading the league in saves, Hernandez is leading in wins and ERA, they just got Beltran back, so they can only get better and all of this with a budget that was once again cut this year and now sits at under $30 mil. Furthermore I would also like to point out that the Royals are 4-2 against the White sox and 3-0 against the Twins, the 2 teams picked to win the Central division.

While on the subject of the worst teams in Baseball I would like to point out that the Tigers are 1-16 (0-6) against the Royals and the mighty D-backs have won only 7 games. The Royals currently hold the largest lead over any of the division leaders and to answer your other stupid questions, the Royals starters are Hernandez, Alfeldt and George. Lopez can start and will on occassion and Sweeny and Beltran are All Star caliber players.
_DS - Wednesday, April 23 2003 @ 09:45 AM EDT (#99978) #
And I would like to remind you, Mr. Misfeldt, that it's only the 3rd week of the season.
Gitz - Wednesday, April 23 2003 @ 01:36 PM EDT (#99979) #
Fearless prediction: Mike MacDougal will be in Omaha by July. You can't keep walking one man per inning, especially late in the game, and get away with it forever. He's on the precipice.
Gitz - Wednesday, April 23 2003 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#99980) #
Oh, and for the record: I actually like the Brewers. They're not a good organization or anything, but they at least have some players worth watching: Richie Sexson, Geoff Jenkins, the much-maligned Eric Young. Also, some of their arms are decent, too: Ben Sheets is no HOFer, but he's got some talent, and Matt Kinney was a very low-risk/mediup upside pick-up. He always had good numbers in the Twins system, and, as BP points out, was merely a victim of roster-crunching with Minnesota, who didn't want to get rid of him.
_Michael Misfeld - Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 02:51 PM EDT (#99981) #
Well just want to let all you Royals haters out there know that it is now the middle of August and what, surprise the Royals are still in 1st place. MacDougal contray to what Gitz wrote is not in Omaha but is still wuth the club and in the top 5 in saves.

True they only hold a 1/2 game lead but that is still bigger then some of the other teams (Mets, Twins, Cubs, A's, Cardinals and White Sox to name a few) that were suppossed to win their divisions this year.

Keep hating it only makes us better.

GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_DS - Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:17 PM EDT (#99982) #
Touche, Mr. Misfeldt.

I have to admit the Royals have completely exceeded expectations for everyone except the most optimistic of fans. It's good to see a team like the Royals make a rise from mediocrity. Unfortunately, I still can't see this team getting much better than they are unless they get some more hitting in place or the pitching continues to improve. But they are moving in the right direction for the first time in years, and that has to be worth something.
Craig B - Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:22 PM EDT (#99983) #
Thanks Michael, stop by again in October to let us know how it all worked out.

(Royals 11-14 since the ASB and have a Pythagorean below .500, but still they may well win the Central. They are 48-52 since the 15-3 start, but I have to admit that's better than I thought they would do)
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#99984) #
I don't think anyone hates the Royals at all. Nobody expected them to do this well. Personally I think the Royals are a great story and I hope they make the playoffs.

_Jonny German - Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:02 PM EDT (#99985) #
Wow, sounds like Michael needs a hug. What search engine do you use to make sure you find every site that didn't think the Royals would be any good this year Mr. Misfeldt? And where can we read your bold preseason prediction of a KC playoff run in 2003?

Royals haters? Au contraire... hated teams are perennially good. I for one quite enjoy it when an underdog rises. I'd even cheer for KC to win the Central if I didn't have more reasons to cheer for the other underdog, Minnesota. But don't kid yourself, these aren't the 2002 Angels (a decent team heading into the season, but whose success was still mainly attributable to luck and several coincidental career years). Even given their year so far, I will be hugely surprised if the Royals make the playoffs, and next year isn't looking great either as they still don't have a plan.

Here's my fearless prediction: More wins for T-Dot than KC in 2004. Feel free to call me on that if it turns out to be off-base, but only if you're willing to make your own call before the cards are played.
Gitz - Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:37 PM EDT (#99986) #
Ick. My MacDougal prediction was lousy, I fully admit that.
Craig B - Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:44 PM EDT (#99987) #
Here's my fearless prediction: More wins for T-Dot than KC in 2004

Well, here's mine : They won't finish more than two wins apart in '03.
_Michael Misfeld - Friday, August 15 2003 @ 12:02 PM EDT (#99988) #
I said that the Royals would be a .500 club before the season started, even I must admit that I never thought that they would do this well. I have been a Royals fan since 1980, probally before most of the current Royals were even born and I have stuck with them for 23 years and I will continue to stick with them. I still think they could use another bat, although I hope they dont trade Beltran to get it, and I think that with the additions that they have made they can win the divivision, unfortunatly they have 7 games against the Sox at the end of the year and they have not fared to well against them. It always seems that when they are down they get that key win and come back. Are they the Angels of last year? ONly time will tell, but after watching them dismantle the mighty Yankees, even you guys must say that they are team to watch.
Who's #1? | 19 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.