A note before we begin.
I am aware that this publication -- which I run -- released a set of power rankings last week under the byline of our intern. I am aware that those rankings cited a cryptocurrency framework as the theoretical basis for team evaluation in a men's recreational baseball league. I am aware they ranked the defending champions third. I am aware they described two runs scored from third in a single inning as "absolute cinema," a phrase I have put in quotes here and will never repeat. I am preparing a separate memo on this matter.
These are the power rankings. Mine. The ones that count.
No. 1 -- WHITE SOX (1-0)
They played. They won, 12-10. The manner of winning was irregular -- their starter gave up 10 runs and stayed the winning pitcher because this team scored 12, which remains technically sufficient -- but wins are wins and the White Sox have one. They carry legitimate scar tissue from last fall, when they were the top seed and lost in the first round to a team that is now called the Blue Jays. That context is part of what this team is in 2026. They are playing with something to prove. That is more motivating than being the favorite. I know this from watching baseball for thirty years and also from reading a single biography about the 1908 Cubs.
No. 2 -- METS (1-0)
They played. Erik Holmen threw a complete game against the Blue Jays -- nine innings, 163 pitches, 42 batters faced, 12 hits, 6 runs, 8 walks, 9 strikeouts. That is a significant workload for a February game, and I am noting the pitch count without treating it as a disqualifying variable. He finished it. The Mets scored 11. They were No. 2 before they played a game. They are No. 2 having played and won one. The underlying logic remains consistent.
No. 3 -- GIANTS (0-1)
The defending champions. They are 0-1 after losing to the White Sox, 12-10, in a game where they scored ten runs and competed to the final out. Both they and the Blue Jays are now 0-1, and I need to place one above the other. The Giants won the championship last fall. The Blue Jays played in the championship game and lost. When records are identical, the tiebreaker is institutional achievement, and the Giants have more of it. One loss in February does not revise their record from last fall. They will also be fine because they know who they are. Gus will file something regardless. He usually does.
No. 4 -- BLUE JAYS (0-1)
They played the Mets and lost, 11-6. Charley will contextualize this. He will not call it a loss in print without surrounding it with language I am going to describe as constructive. What I can note factually: the Blue Jays went to the championship game last fall, which this ranking has already credited. They are now 0-1, as are the Giants. The Giants won the championship. The Blue Jays did not. When records are tied, that distinction decides the ranking. I find it genuinely difficult to type anything favorable about this team given who their beat writer is. That remains true. It is also not relevant to the ranking. This ranking is subject to revision.
One umpire. ONE umpire. Six formal communications to the league office since last fall. Zero responses. The league is on notice. The notice is not being read. This is a separate and ongoing structural problem with this organization.
Power Rankings drop every Monday. It is always Monday.
-- Bill
Editor-in-Chief | Replacement Level Media