PDA

View Full Version : Rogers Tries To Answer If Spring Games Matter


Lip Man 1
03-19-2012, 11:33 AM
Looks at the numbers:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-your-morning-phil-spring-records-ozzie-harper-20120319,0,7424655.column

Lip

Foulke You
03-19-2012, 11:44 AM
I don't care what the stats say. I say they aren't that important until the last 4 or 5 days when you are getting ready to start the season. Almost all Spring Training wins and losses are dictated by players who are going to be playing in AA and AAA when the bell rings. 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th innings are largely played by farm hands. Guys like Dallas McPherson, Leyson Septimo, and Jordan Danks finished off yesterday's "big win" against the Cubs. The only season impact those three are going to have is for the Charlotte Knights.

doublem23
03-19-2012, 11:47 AM
:rolling:

He's only going back 5 years for his data? Absolutely wreaks of a guy who already made up his mind on the subject, looked at some numbers that disproved his theory, and then tweaked them until he found something that "proved" his opinion.

This is the same genius who brought you the +1/-1 system of evaluating off-seasons, though, so thanks for always making me laugh, Phil. You never dissapoint.

:kneeslap:

Golden Sox
03-19-2012, 12:29 PM
The only time Spring Training games mean anything is when the White Sox beat the Cubs like they did yesterday.

dickallen15
03-19-2012, 12:40 PM
Alex Rios and Gordon Beckham put on All Star performances during spring training last year. All that matters is what happens starting April 6th. BTW, Adam Dunn's spring training 2011 was far better than his spring training 2010. I suppose some spring training performance possibly can tell you what's coming, but especially with veterans, their career numbers probably give you a better indication.

mrfourni
03-19-2012, 12:40 PM
The only time Spring Training games mean anything is when the White Sox beat the Cubs like they did yesterday.

Without looking it up, do you know who won the Sox-Cubs spring training games in 2011?

Harry Chappas
03-19-2012, 12:56 PM
I agree that the W/L column means next to nothing but to completely dismiss individual performance in ST is, I think, a little naive.

RedHeadPaleHoser
03-19-2012, 01:06 PM
If the Cubs beat the Sox yesterday, he's the story above the fold about how crucial ST is for a team to set its tempo and tone. The Sox beat the Cubs? Let's go back 5 years to investigate.

Birdcage fodder.

Marqhead
03-19-2012, 01:23 PM
Well the Sox have won 5 games and lost 10, so I have them at a -5 right now. That's not very good.

TomBradley72
03-19-2012, 01:39 PM
For a league that's been playing for 110+ years- using a 5 year sample and then the approach Rogers takes is pretty much meaningless. Only a true, comprehensive correlation analysis between spring training and regular season winning pct. would provide any really relevent conclusions.

The roster make up in spring training for both the White Sox and their opponents along with the playing conditions and tactics by the managers and coaches are all completely different between spring training and the regular season- the real news would be that somehow there IS a connection/correlation between the two.

I couldn't find any comprehensive data- but from what I did find- I just don't see a connection:

1984- 19-10 (Grapefruit League Champs!)- then sucked in the regular season
1986, 1987- 15-15 spring training- sucked in regular season
1990- 6-9 in spring training- 94 wins in regular season
1996- 20-11 in spring training- sucked in regular season
1998- 18-12 in spring training- sucked in regular season
1999- 17-16 in spring training- sucked in regular season
2005- 14-18 spring training record led to 99 win/World Series champions
2006- 10-19 in spring training, 90 wins in regular season

doublem23
03-19-2012, 01:45 PM
They only played 15 ST games in 1990? Was there a month-long monsoon in Florida that year?

Good analysis, BTW. :thumbsup:

The other thing you got to check here for is the definitions. Breaking stuff up having a "winning" or "losing" season does little to tell you about a team's season. Would anyone consider it positive if the Sox went 25-5 in Spring and then won 84 games and finished 15 games behind the Tigers in the regular season? That's still technically satisfying Phil's opinion that winning in Spring translates into a winning season, but nobody is going to fondly remember an 84-78 year.

sox1970
03-19-2012, 01:58 PM
They only played 15 ST games in 1990? Was there a month-long monsoon in Florida that year?

Good analysis, BTW. :thumbsup:

The other thing you got to check here for is the definitions. Breaking stuff up having a "winning" or "losing" season does little to tell you about a team's season. Would anyone consider it positive if the Sox went 25-5 in Spring and then won 84 games and finished 15 games behind the Tigers in the regular season? That's still technically satisfying Phil's opinion that winning in Spring translates into a winning season, but nobody is going to fondly remember an 84-78 year.

Lockout ended, and the season started late.

TomBradley72
03-19-2012, 01:59 PM
They only played 15 ST games in 1990? Was there a month-long monsoon in Florida that year?

Good analysis, BTW. :thumbsup:

The other thing you got to check here for is the definitions. Breaking stuff up having a "winning" or "losing" season does little to tell you about a team's season. Would anyone consider it positive if the Sox went 25-5 in Spring and then won 84 games and finished 15 games behind the Tigers in the regular season? That's still technically satisfying Phil's opinion that winning in Spring translates into a winning season, but nobody is going to fondly remember an 84-78 year.

If I remember correctly there may have been a brief lock out/strike in 1990 that led to the abbreviated spring training. I remember the schedule got messed around- so the White Sox and Cubs home openers were on the same day- I went to both with a Cubs fan friend of mine- my first trip to Wrigley Field since the mid- 70's and I had to explain to the Cub fans in front of me why the runner was out at first even though the 1st baseman's foot came off the bag because he used a swipe tag- they still didn't understand and tilted their heads at me like labradors before returning to their Old Styles.

DumpJerry
03-19-2012, 02:01 PM
I'm headed to the Chiropractor's office now. I twisted my back completely out of whack trying to following the twists and turns of Phil's reasoning (why did he combine the Sox and Cubs' W/L records? Are they relevant to each other?).

TDog
03-19-2012, 02:12 PM
Looking at teams that have winning springs and go on to win ignores the teams that have winning springs and go on to lose. The Royals had the best spring winning percentage in baseball last year winning two-thirds of their games. Even if there was carry over, after nine games, they were tied with the White Sox. And after that quick start, they were even less a contender than the White Sox.

Playing to win in spring exhibition games won't get you anywhere and may actually hurt your team's chances of winning in the regular season. It isn't that losing spring games is good. It's that winning doesn't mean anything, and managers who focus on winning may be ignoring things they need to do to win. While you may bring potential relief pitchers into jams to see what they handle situations with runners on base, and sometimes with pitchers trying to make the team managers may believe they have seen enough, pitching moves are generally geared toward the work your staff needs to get in. You often have hitters leaving the game early, sometimes getting a couple of at bats in minor league exhibition games nearby. You have players working on bunting in situations where they wouldn't be bunting in the regular season.

When things go wrong in the regular season, fans complain that such things should have been worked on in spring training. That, and not winning, is what spring exhibitions are supposed to be.

I am impressed that Ventura as a rookie manager seems to be working on preparing his team more than winning games. Sometimes rookie managers treat spring training as managerial practice, but they are going up against managers who aren't playing to win as they would be in the regular season. Ventura seems to have the Cactus League in perspective.

Teams that win in the March may turn out to be winners in October, but that doesn't mean there is a cause-effect relationship. Sometimes the spring stars that help you win turn out to be the likes of John Matias who play their butts off to make it to the majors and end up with a career batting average of .188.

Chez
03-19-2012, 02:20 PM
The most noteworthy aspect of Phil's analysis is that he made it through the entire column without mentioning the Daniel Hudson for Edwin Jackson trade. Perhaps a first.

cards press box
03-19-2012, 02:29 PM
Looks at the numbers:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-your-morning-phil-spring-records-ozzie-harper-20120319,0,7424655.column

Lip

Here is an article (http://assets.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1518849.html) from baseball writer Michael Wolverton that, in my view, refutes Rogers' theory on spring training pretty well.

MisterB
03-19-2012, 03:34 PM
Yes, but the question is: does Phil Rogers matter? :thinking:

WhiteSox5187
03-19-2012, 04:20 PM
My own two cents here is that Spring Training games do count for something but the results and stats accumulated in the games are meaningless. I was at some Grapefruit League games over the weekend and in one of the games (it was the Tigers and Cardinals I think) the Tigers played the infield in with a runner on third in the first inning, I doubt that the Tigers cared about that run scoring but it allows them the chance to work on some situational defense. In the first few innings of yesterday's game the Sox were only playing for one run acting as though it were the late innings of a close game. So those things matter but most stats can be thrown out though they can occasionally raise some red flags

DumpJerry
03-19-2012, 04:54 PM
My own two cents here is that Spring Training games do count for something but the results and stats accumulated in the games are meaningless. I was at some Grapefruit League games over the weekend and in one of the games (it was the Tigers and Cardinals I think) the Tigers played the infield in with a runner on third in the first inning, I doubt that the Tigers cared about that run scoring but it allows them the chance to work on some situational defense. In the first few innings of yesterday's game the Sox were only playing for one run acting as though it were the late innings of a close game. So those things matter but most stats can be thrown out though they can occasionally raise some red flags
Bingo. You also have established pitchers experimenting with new stuff since there is not harm to the team. This is why some stud pitchers have scary numbers in ST. There are also situations where a pitcher is ordered to pitch only one or two specific pitches no matter the situation so he can work on something.

Moses_Scurry
03-19-2012, 06:48 PM
The only correlation I could possibly imagine would be how the team ends spring training and how they start the regular season. The last few seasons, the Sox have started the season abysmally and have also had pretty uninspiring spring trainings. Maybe if they had finished strong in the spring they would have had better starts to the season. This is also just going by recent memory though, so I certainly don't have any solid data to back it up.

Also, when I was a kid and paid closer attention to spring training games, it always seemed like the same teams had winning records and the same teams had losing records every year in the spring.

WhiteSox5187
03-19-2012, 10:39 PM
Bingo. You also have established pitchers experimenting with new stuff since there is not harm to the team. This is why some stud pitchers have scary numbers in ST. There are also situations where a pitcher is ordered to pitch only one or two specific pitches no matter the situation so he can work on something.

I am not positive but I would imagine that right now pitchers are done experimenting so you should start seeing more extended innings and quit experimenting. I'd say the last two weeks of spring training is a good time to start taking a peek at stats and you can MAYBE get an idea of what to expect from a guy.

doublem23
03-19-2012, 10:40 PM
I am not positive but I would imagine that right now pitchers are done experimenting so you should start seeing more extended innings and quit experimenting. I'd say the last two weeks of spring training is a good time to start taking a peek at stats and you can MAYBE get an idea of what to expect from a guy.

Agreed, which is why it's somewhat comforting to see that two guys the Sox are going to lean heavily on, Peavy and Sale, each had really good outings these past few days.

TheVulture
03-20-2012, 10:42 PM
I noticed the Chicago Trib sports stopped allowing reader comments. Apparently, the staff were getting tired of reading about why they are ****ing idiots.

doublem23
03-21-2012, 05:30 AM
I noticed the Chicago Trib sports stopped allowing reader comments. Apparently, the staff were getting tired of reading about why they are ****ing idiots.

No they just hid them, you have to click a link to bring you to the discussion boards. This article's are here:

http://discussions.chicagotribune.com/20/chinews/chi-your-morning-phil-spring-records-ozzie-harper-20120319/10

They did this for all their pages. If you've ever read newspaper discussion threads, they're homing beacons for racists, conspiracy theorists, and lunatics.

DonnieDarko
03-21-2012, 09:11 AM
No they just hid them, you have to click a link to bring you to the discussion boards. This article's are here:

http://discussions.chicagotribune.com/20/chinews/chi-your-morning-phil-spring-records-ozzie-harper-20120319/10

They did this for all their pages. If you've ever read newspaper discussion threads, they're homing beacons for racists, conspiracy theorists, and lunatics.

Replace "newspaper discussion threads" with "any article written on the web with a comments section" and you'd be 100% correct. :P

TheVulture
03-21-2012, 07:10 PM
If you've ever read newspaper discussion threads, they're homing beacons for racists, conspiracy theorists, and lunatics.
Don't blame it all on me, I probably only account for .00000001% of the lunatic conspiracy posts at best. That Sarah Palin's Dirty Little Secret guy, on the other hand...

SCCWS
03-21-2012, 08:14 PM
Other factors to consider when using Spring Training data is that the Florida teams don't play the AZ teams. Most teams due to geographics play about 10 different teams and often 2 or 3 teams more than others. Also split squad games counting as 2 games is pretty useless as far a W&L.

dickallen15
03-24-2012, 08:22 AM
I am not positive but I would imagine that right now pitchers are done experimenting so you should start seeing more extended innings and quit experimenting. I'd say the last two weeks of spring training is a good time to start taking a peek at stats and you can MAYBE get an idea of what to expect from a guy.

But then you get guys pitching in minor league games so the major league opponents don't get to look at their stuff until the games count. The Sox spring record has been all over the map. Its been awful and they played awful. Its been great an the regular season was awful. Its been great and they have won divisions. Its been awful and they have won a world championship. Even individual hitter stats don't matter. Rios and Beckham would have been all stars last spring, Dunn hit .100 points better in the spring of 2011 than he did in the spring of 2010.

Spring numbers only are meaningful for young guys and non roster guys trying to make the team. Normally, these are for the last couple spots on the team and wouldn't seem to affect the overall record too much.