Karl Ravech: So many people are unwilling to really draw conclusions based on three games--
--because those people have functioning brains--
Ravech: --I feel very comfortable that these Power Rankings you're about to deliver will hold up for most of the year.
I think (hope?) that Ravech is being sarcastic here, and maybe subtly mocking Kruk a little bit. I like it.
John Kruk: At least 'til the break. I think at least 'til the break, yeah, they will.
Kruk doesn't catch on, at all. Which is very disconcerting.
Ravech: What are they?
Kruk: Well, I don't know.
Correct. One point for Kruk.
Kruk: [laughs it off]
Nope, wait, he was being sarcastic. [Kruk's point is retracted.]
Kruk: Well, I've got Tampa Bay. I mean, you win three games against the Yankees, everyone thought the Yankees would win the East, they're the top team for me.
Perfectly defensible. Awesome pitching. Good hitting. Great defense. Well done.
Kruk: Detroit, beating the Red Sox three games, three-and-oh.
Not really a complete sentence, but sure, another good pick. Continue.
Kruk: Arizona, beating the Giants.
As you can see, Kruk likes to deliver his thoughts in short spurts rather than complete sentences, maybe because he runs out of breath after a few words or something. The result is basically incongruous babble, which doesn't help when the next point you're going to make is also incongruous babble:
| Know about baseball, John Kruk does not. |
Wait--I'm really sorry, but it sounded like you said 'Mets' and 'Baltimore Orioles.' Could you repeat that?
Kruk: Then the Mets, and then the Baltimore Orioles.
Oh, so I didn't mishear you, and you're just admitting that you don't really know anything about anything. The METS AND THE ORIOLES? The only (ONLY) worse choice would have been the Astros, maybe.
Justify your unjustifiable selections, please.
Kruk: Hey, how can you not have teams that are three-and-oh, undefeated, haven't lost, not be the best five teams in baseball?
Because teams that are bad at baseball don't belong on the list called "Top Five Teams in Baseball."
Look, Krukie. You chose the Orioles and the Mets only because they've won three games in a row. That means nothing. At all. Hey, last year, the Mets started 3-1 and enjoyed 11 different three-game winning streaks. They finished 77-85. The Orioles actually started last year with wins in six of their first seven games, and had nine different three-game win streaks. Their final record was 69-93, finishing 28 games out of first place. This year's Mets lost their best position player, Jose Reyes, and this year's Orioles lost their best pitcher, Jeremy Guthrie. Regardless of their records, these are bad baseball teams.
Because, believe it or not: a three-game sample size is indicative of almost nothing. That's like, 13 at-bats. Shelley Duncan can look good in 13 at-bats.
Relevant Example: I just checked the box scores, and Barry Zito threw a complete-game shutout against the Rockies. Maybe Kruk will now pick Zito to win the Cy Young.
Kruk [referring to Ravech's rankings]: How do you get--how do you get Texas and [the Angels] in there? How do you do that?
Because those teams are actually good at hitting and pitching the baseball. Even though (gasp!) both teams have lost already. You might think that ugly lone blemish in the loss column virtually eliminates Texas and L.A. from playoff contention, but--bear with me, now--I have a hunch that they'll somehow claw their way back into the race.
Kruk: How do you get better than undefeated? You're disrespecting the teams that are undefeated.
I like how Kruk throws around 'undefeated' like it means something after three games. The O's and Mets swept a three-game series. Have you never seen this before?
Ravech: You'll be able to follow John Kruk's Power Rankings on ESPN.com all season long.
Oh, trust me, I'll be checking them thrice daily.
Ravech: Don't look for any changes, though.
Well played, Ravech.
No comments:
Post a Comment