PDA

View Full Version : How important are spring results?


lowesox
03-06-2004, 09:46 PM
Just wanted to know how other people feel. Especially since the Sox are off to a pretty solid start to the spring.

I think the importance of spring results depends on the type of team you have. If the Sox can have a good spring, I think that'll be a very good sign because A) the Sox have several young players who are key to this season's success and B) The Sox have a new manager and C) In order to make a bang, the sox will have to be a 'chemistry team'.

I'm really happy to see our pitchers start off so well. This way, all of the guys fighting for spots are really pushed.

Tragg
03-06-2004, 09:56 PM
If by results you mean record, about as relevant as pre-season football records- i.e. irrelevant.
Even individual player performance as revealed statistically (obviously managers can dig deeper than stats and get an idea of who's doing what) is close to irrelevant- pitchers don't throw their top stuff much and batters don't face the top stuff much.

jamteh
03-06-2004, 09:59 PM
I think it's important for the young players to gain confidence by winning ST games.

yadosoxfan
03-06-2004, 09:59 PM
I don't know, the royals last year had the best spring record and look what they did. sometimes having a good spring can lead right into the season, also for example, the sox in 2000. they had a solid spring and it followed through into april. having a good spring isn't everything and if you have a bad spring it doesn't mean you are going to be bad, but it never hurts to win more games then you lose, even if it doesn't count. confidence heading into the season is never a bad thing

Daver
03-06-2004, 10:04 PM
I would put about as much stock in ST games as I do in winter league numbers.


None at all.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-06-2004, 11:40 PM
Come July there won't be one single spring training statistic that anybody will have even the slightest interest in hearing about.

stingo
03-06-2004, 11:56 PM
"How important are spring results?"

I know the "right" answer is supposed to be not at all, but I can't totally agree...

I think it can show whether guys have shown up in shape, whether they're healthy or not. Also, winning even in spring has to add confidence, which is a good thing, in most cases. Watch, if a team starts out 0 for 6, 0 for 7, they'll start pressing for a win, even though it's spring training.

In sum, no it's not all that important, but I tend to think moreso than people are willing to give it credit for. After all, half the guys out there are trying to win a job; if that doesn't translate to a few wins, you start to wonder about the quality of the people trying to make the team.

I'd rather see wins than losses, even though it's spring.

owensmouth
03-07-2004, 02:51 AM
The one thing I want to see is the direction the team is heading. That can sometimes be an indicator of how they will start off once the season starts.

In 2000 the Sox seemed to be milling around during the first two weeks of ST. Then they started hitting the ball hard and often.

Baldwin and Eldred especially, came out on fire and led the team through the first three months and by early July the Sox had the Central division sewn up.

Watch for what they do in the last three weeks of the Cactus League. Those games may indicate what the Sox'll do.

hose
03-07-2004, 05:42 AM
I think spring results are important for individual players that are competing for a roster position . Grili, Gload, Rauch, Stewart, Cotts, to name a few. The team's spring winning percentage isn't going to be an accurate gauge of how they will do in the regular season.

Kittle
03-07-2004, 06:37 AM
They might be more important for pitchers, given that Tucson's a very hitter-friendly environment. After Loaiza was lights out during ST last year, I snagged him late in my fantasy baseball draft.

Realist
03-07-2004, 07:57 AM
This thread has a very diverse array of opinion on the subject, yet it seems as everyone's opinion sounds so completely valid.

There's probably a little truth in saying that spring training stats mean everything, and there's probably a little truth in saying that spring training could be nothing.

There's a big pile of factors to consider and you probably have to approach the subject from more of a player by player basis than team by team.

ondafarm
03-07-2004, 08:13 AM
ST results do mean something.

Guys who are hot in ST tend to start hot.

Young teams or at least teams with several key rookies tend to do well in the regular season when they do well in ST.

Problems appearing in ST almost always get carried over into the regular season.

And for managers ST is most important. They need to figure the chemistry of the team and know how each player is performing. What they can count on and what not.

For a veteran team with a veteran manager, ST means DS. But for an underachieving team with a rookie manager and several rookie in key spots ST is important.

ma-gaga
03-07-2004, 01:29 PM
If your team goes 15-5, then ST means a lot.
If your team goes 5-15, then ST means nothing...

:)

chitown sox
03-07-2004, 02:32 PM
Winning is winning. I don't give a **** if it's the first ST game or game 7 of the WS. Always good to grow a winning attitude.

Patrick134
03-07-2004, 02:53 PM
You could have a great spring, then a horrible season, and vice versa. Spring training is valuable in that you see which fringe guys play well and get added to the regular season roster. things like winning and hitting well are contagious, so it certainly is good to do well. But you could also not do well, learn from whatever mistakes you were making, and use that to have a good season.

Huisj
03-07-2004, 03:07 PM
pitching is a complicated thing to judge for some guys, especially older guys who have a spot locked up already. sometimes they use ST to work on certain pitches or to work out new tweaks in mechanics. because of this, it's really hard to judge them based on performance in ST.

i really don't put a lot of stock into ST, especially this early when everyone's still adjusting to playing in real games everyday and when half the rosters are minor leaguers. However, I also don't know how much stock can be put in the last little bit of ST either, because sometimes by the end, the guys are just kind of going through the motions because there spots are locked up and they don't want to overdo it right before the season. i always think the last 3 or 4 ST games suck because no one looks like they care, because they just want the real season to get going, and they're sick of playing games that don't count.

i dunno, just my opinion, which is worth less than 2 cents probably

stingo
03-29-2004, 10:19 AM
I'm gonna have to change my mind on this one...spring results are completely & utterly meaningless. :)

Jeez, stop paying attention to spring games for a little while, and when I come back the standings have done this. It can't mean anything that the twins, yanks, red sox are at the top and the tigers, jays, and o's are at the bottom, can it? that's not what they call in literary terms foreshadowing?

denev1
03-29-2004, 02:15 PM
I don't put much stock in the over all team record, but a lot of people seem to agree that it's the individual results that are valuable. Though I would think that the overall record would give some indication of organizational depth. (could be totally wrong on that one though) A litmus test for the individual player stat theory could be Billy Koch, every time I've seen his line in spring training it has made me cringe. He has given up walks and runs consistently while not getting the k's. I'll be interested to see what his numbers look like when they play for keeps and wouldn't be surprised if they are very similar