Cranny wrote: ↑22 Oct 2025 18:35 pmNot a fallacy at all. Do some homework. Look up what the pundits felt at the beginning of the seasons - the Cardinals chances of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
I strongly suggest YOU do some homework. In early 2006, the Cardinals were the NL favorites, with 11-2 odds. Only the Yankees were favored more, with 5-1 odds.
I strongly suggest you look at other sources. There were lot of rankings from other sources.
Or you could do your own (drat) research and cite your sources here. Pre-season, 2006.
Sure, QV. Here's where the Cardinals showed up in the April 2006 power rankings from other sources -
Apparently, his argument is that because the Cardinals weren't ranked as the absolute #1 top team (out of 30) in these particular, hand-picked "preseason power ranking" polls (whatever that means), they therefore were an "underdog." So at the beginning of each season, there are 29 "underdogs" by his definition. I mean, even by Cranny standards, this is pure sophistry.
Meanwhile, as usual Cranny is only willing to consider the select data points that conveniently confirm his priors, while willfully refusing to acknowledge--let alone actually grapple with--any contradictory evidence (such as the preseason betting odds).
Cranny wrote: ↑22 Oct 2025 18:35 pmNot a fallacy at all. Do some homework. Look up what the pundits felt at the beginning of the seasons - the Cardinals chances of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
I strongly suggest YOU do some homework. In early 2006, the Cardinals were the NL favorites, with 11-2 odds. Only the Yankees were favored more, with 5-1 odds.
I strongly suggest you look at other sources. There were lot of rankings from other sources.
Or you could do your own (drat) research and cite your sources here. Pre-season, 2006.
Sure, QV. Here's where the Cardinals showed up in the April 2006 power rankings from other sources -
Apparently, his argument is that because the Cardinals weren't ranked as the absolute #1 top team (out of 30) in these particular, hand-picked "preseason power ranking" polls (whatever that means), they therefore were an "underdog." So at the beginning of each season, there are 29 "underdogs" by his definition. I mean, even by Cranny standards, this is pure sophistry.
Meanwhile, as usual Cranny is only willing to consider the select data points that conveniently confirm his priors, while willfully refusing to acknowledge--let alone actually grapple with--any contradictory evidence (such as the preseason betting odds).
Wrong again, NY. You seem to attempt to excel (in your own thinking) at putting other posters down as your major contribution to CT. I simply listed some other sources (at the request of QV) that didn't have the Cardinals as the favorites to win the WS in 2006. Simple as that. Try not to make a habit of making a mountain out of a mole hole.
Cranny wrote: ↑22 Oct 2025 18:35 pmNot a fallacy at all. Do some homework. Look up what the pundits felt at the beginning of the seasons - the Cardinals chances of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
I strongly suggest YOU do some homework. In early 2006, the Cardinals were the NL favorites, with 11-2 odds. Only the Yankees were favored more, with 5-1 odds.
I strongly suggest you look at other sources. There were lot of rankings from other sources.
Or you could do your own (drat) research and cite your sources here. Pre-season, 2006.
Sure, QV. Here's where the Cardinals showed up in the April 2006 power rankings from other sources -
Cranny wrote: ↑22 Oct 2025 18:35 pmNot a fallacy at all. Do some homework. Look up what the pundits felt at the beginning of the seasons - the Cardinals chances of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
I strongly suggest YOU do some homework. In early 2006, the Cardinals were the NL favorites, with 11-2 odds. Only the Yankees were favored more, with 5-1 odds.
I strongly suggest you look at other sources. There were lot of rankings from other sources.
Or you could do your own (drat) research and cite your sources here. Pre-season, 2006.
Sure, QV. Here's where the Cardinals showed up in the April 2006 power rankings from other sources -
Cranny wrote: ↑22 Oct 2025 18:35 pmNot a fallacy at all. Do some homework. Look up what the pundits felt at the beginning of the seasons - the Cardinals chances of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
I strongly suggest YOU do some homework. In early 2006, the Cardinals were the NL favorites, with 11-2 odds. Only the Yankees were favored more, with 5-1 odds.
I strongly suggest you look at other sources. There were lot of rankings from other sources.
Or you could do your own (drat) research and cite your sources here. Pre-season, 2006.
Sure, QV. Here's where the Cardinals showed up in the April 2006 power rankings from other sources -
Apparently, his argument is that because the Cardinals weren't ranked as the absolute #1 top team (out of 30) in these particular, hand-picked "preseason power ranking" polls (whatever that means), they therefore were an "underdog." So at the beginning of each season, there are 29 "underdogs" by his definition. I mean, even by Cranny standards, this is pure sophistry.
Meanwhile, as usual Cranny is only willing to consider the select data points that conveniently confirm his priors, while willfully refusing to acknowledge--let alone actually grapple with--any contradictory evidence (such as the preseason betting odds).
Wrong again, NY. You seem to attempt to excel (in your own thinking) at putting other posters down as your major contribution to CT. I simply listed some other sources (at the request of QV) that didn't have the Cardinals as the favorites to win the WS in 2006. Simple as that. Try not to make a habit of making a mountain out of a mole hole.
Wrong again, Cranny. People substantively disagreeing with you—with reasoning and evidence—isn’t “putting you down” any more than your condescendingly telling people to “do their homework” or “look it up” is putting them down. But you already know that.
But let’s get back to your typical motte-and-bailey routine: so in the multiple pages of posts you’ve made in this thread, your entire point was simply to note that the Cardinals weren’t the absolute #1 ranked team (out of 30) in certain pre-season “power polls” at the start of 2006? And therefore, in your mind, any outcome in which the Cardinals ultimately won the World Series demonstrates what, exactly? That it’s “luck”? That all you have to do is get in? What’s your point? Surely all these posts weren’t written just to make the utterly banal observation that any single team—even the #1 ranked team—in any pre-season power poll is mathematically unlikely to win the World Series just based on basic probability.
Cranny wrote: ↑22 Oct 2025 18:35 pmNot a fallacy at all. Do some homework. Look up what the pundits felt at the beginning of the seasons - the Cardinals chances of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
I strongly suggest YOU do some homework. In early 2006, the Cardinals were the NL favorites, with 11-2 odds. Only the Yankees were favored more, with 5-1 odds.
I strongly suggest you look at other sources. There were lot of rankings from other sources.
Or you could do your own (drat) research and cite your sources here. Pre-season, 2006.
Sure, QV. Here's where the Cardinals showed up in the April 2006 power rankings from other sources -
Apparently, his argument is that because the Cardinals weren't ranked as the absolute #1 top team (out of 30) in these particular, hand-picked "preseason power ranking" polls (whatever that means), they therefore were an "underdog." So at the beginning of each season, there are 29 "underdogs" by his definition. I mean, even by Cranny standards, this is pure sophistry.
Meanwhile, as usual Cranny is only willing to consider the select data points that conveniently confirm his priors, while willfully refusing to acknowledge--let alone actually grapple with--any contradictory evidence (such as the preseason betting odds).
Wrong again, NY. You seem to attempt to excel (in your own thinking) at putting other posters down as your major contribution to CT. I simply listed some other sources (at the request of QV) that didn't have the Cardinals as the favorites to win the WS in 2006. Simple as that. Try not to make a habit of making a mountain out of a mole hole.
Wrong again, Cranny. People substantively disagreeing with you—with reasoning and evidence—isn’t “putting you down” any more than your condescendingly telling people to “do their homework” or “look it up” is putting them down. But you already know that.
But let’s get back to your typical motte-and-bailey routine: so in the multiple pages of posts you’ve made in this thread, your entire point was simply to note that the Cardinals weren’t the absolute #1 ranked team (out of 30) in certain pre-season “power polls” at the start of 2006? And therefore, in your mind, any outcome in which the Cardinals ultimately won the World Series demonstrates what, exactly? That it’s “luck”? That all you have to do is get in? What’s your point? Surely all these posts weren’t written just to make the utterly banal observation that any single team—even the #1 ranked team—in any pre-season power poll is mathematically unlikely to win the World Series just based on basic probability.
Description of “NY” on CT - Aloof, secretive, judgemental, PDA (put down artist), etc.
Actually he’s probably a fairly astute and knowledgable baseball guy. If he would only stop stomping on octogenarians he might be productive as a poster.
Cranny wrote: ↑22 Oct 2025 18:35 pmNot a fallacy at all. Do some homework. Look up what the pundits felt at the beginning of the seasons - the Cardinals chances of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
I strongly suggest YOU do some homework. In early 2006, the Cardinals were the NL favorites, with 11-2 odds. Only the Yankees were favored more, with 5-1 odds.
I strongly suggest you look at other sources. There were lot of rankings from other sources.
Or you could do your own (drat) research and cite your sources here. Pre-season, 2006.
Sure, QV. Here's where the Cardinals showed up in the April 2006 power rankings from other sources -
