Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports

[Vidav]

[93henfan]

The Yankees aren't #1.

I like it.

But it also begs the question: How can a team with 53 world championships (or whatever the Yankees are up to now) not be #1?

[89Hen]

Kind of interesting, but usually a futile exercise. Everyone who is a fan of a low ranked team doesn't like where they're ranked and I'm no different.

Caps, Seahawks, Saints... all be ranked that low immediately disqualifies this exercise.

The Knicks at 53? WTF?

[Gil Dobie]

How can 3 teams from the same city be average?

[93henfan]

How are the Phils middle of the pack?

Has any other professional franchise IN THE ENTIRE WORLD even joined the 10,000 losses club with them yet?

[Gil Dobie]

How are the Phils middle of the pack?

Has any other professional franchise IN THE ENTIRE WORLD even joined the 10,000 losses club with them yet?

Braves, Cubs, Pirates, Reds and the Cardinals are 3 away

[Gil Dobie]

Phillies are 27 out of 30 in winning percentage.

[93henfan]

Phillies are 27 out of 30 in winning percentage.

Yes, we know they suck. Why the need to pile on?

Is it because the Twins suck too?

That's rhetorical. Don't answer

[Gil Dobie]

Phillies are 27 out of 30 in winning percentage.

Yes, we know they suck. Why the need to pile on?

Is it because the Twins suck too?

That's rhetorical. Don't answer

My team is #8, but only won 4 World Series. Twins are #21 with 3 World Series which includes the original Senators.

[93henfan]

So if you're going with multiple world series victories, that's why the Phils are average. That apparently balances their most ever losses of any franchise in the world.

[89Hen]

Wait, Patriots at 28? Ok, this one is beyond futile, it's just moronic.

[Gil Dobie]

So if you're going with multiple world series victories, that's why the Phils are average. That apparently balances their most ever losses of any franchise in the world.

And why are the Twins ahead of the Red Sox on the list?

[Pwns]

So if you're going with multiple world series victories, that's why the Phils are average. That apparently balances their most ever losses of any franchise in the world.

And why are the Twins ahead of the Red Sox on the list?

For the same reason the Lakers are ahead of the Patriots...factoring in decades of results with no recency bias,

[89Hen]

And why are the Twins ahead of the Red Sox on the list?

For the same reason the Lakers are ahead of the Patriots...factoring in decades of results with no recency bias,

Last time I looked 9 WS > 3

[89Hen]

recency bias

That is debatable as to what that should mean.

Twins have 8 playoff trips in the last 28 years with only one playoff series win. 28 years. That's not what I would call recency.

Redskins perfect example. They have been one of the bottom three franchises since before my 23 year old daughter was born. Their ancient Super Bowls should almost be worthless by now.

[Gil Dobie]

recency bias

That is debatable as to what that should mean.

Twins have 8 playoff trips in the last 28 years with only one playoff series win. 28 years. That's not what I would call recency.

Redskins perfect example. They have been one of the bottom three franchises since before my 23 year old daughter was born. Their ancient Super Bowls should almost be worthless by now.

Like they said in the video, that 86 year gap hurt their standings.

[Vidav]

Wait, Patriots at 28? Ok, this one is beyond futile, it's just moronic.

But how long did they go without a Super Bowl win, or without an MVP? They took lots of things into account. The video explains it.

[Gil Dobie]

Wait, Patriots at 28? Ok, this one is beyond futile, it's just moronic.

But how long did they go without a Super Bowl win, or without an MVP? They took lots of things into account. The video explains it.

Except pre Super Bowl Champions were not counted as champions.

[Vidav]

But how long did they go without a Super Bowl win, or without an MVP? They took lots of things into account. The video explains it.

Except pre Super Bowl Champions were not counted as champions.

I said "how long did they go without a Super Bowl win" so I'm not sure of your point.

[Vidav]

Watch this if you want to understand why pre Super Bowl championships shouldn't really matter to anyone. So many teams were in and out of the league in the early days.

[Gil Dobie]

Except pre Super Bowl Champions were not counted as champions.

I said "how long did they go without a Super Bowl win" so I'm not sure of your point.

Pat's yes, but the things they took into account and things they didn't count, hurt Green Bay and the Bears.

[89Hen]

Watch this if you want to understand why pre Super Bowl championships shouldn't really matter to anyone. So many teams were in and out of the league in the early days.

Perfect, we can discount 70% of the Yankees World Series.

[89Hen]

That is debatable as to what that should mean.

Twins have 8 playoff trips in the last 28 years with only one playoff series win. 28 years. That's not what I would call recency.

Redskins perfect example. They have been one of the bottom three franchises since before my 23 year old daughter was born. Their ancient Super Bowls should almost be worthless by now.

Like they said in the video, that 86 year gap hurt their standings.

You guys are assuming I watched the video. I just fast forwarded to where I saw them actually give the team ranks. I don't give a shit about their methodology, it sucks. They all suck. Of course some of the rankings are accurate (Cardinals highly ranked) but there are just too many that don't pass the sniff test. WGAF if a team had a drought in the 60's and 70's?

[Gil Dobie]

Like they said in the video, that 86 year gap hurt their standings.

You guys are assuming I watched the video. I just fast forwarded to where I saw them actually give the team ranks. I don't give a shit about their methodology, it sucks. They all suck. Of course some of the rankings are accurate (Cardinals highly ranked) but there are just too many that don't pass the sniff test. WGAF if a team had a drought in the 60's and 70's?

Red Sox 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's 80's 90's

[89Hen]

You guys are assuming I watched the video. I just fast forwarded to where I saw them actually give the team ranks. I don't give a shit about their methodology, it sucks. They all suck. Of course some of the rankings are accurate (Cardinals highly ranked) but there are just too many that don't pass the sniff test. WGAF if a team had a drought in the 60's and 70's?

Red Sox 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's 80's 90's

Why are we talking about the Red Sox? I didn't bring them up.