19-14

by jonk on May 6, 2008 3:13 AM EDT

Is a .575 winning percentage. Looking back and ignoring the first week of each season, this is the best winning percentage the Phillies have had since May 14, 2006 when they were flying high with a 22-15 record for a .594 winning percentage.

The Phils had just finished off a sweep of the Reds to put an exclamation mark on a nice 2 weeks where they went 13-1. At the end of the streak, the middle of the lineup consisted of 5 hitters with an OPS of .900 above (Utley, Abreu, Howard, Burrell and Victorino).

Of course, the Phils then went 2-9 over the next 11, and 16-32 over the next 48. Yeah, let's hope that doesn't happen again.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Since their low point

The Phillies lost on April 20 of last year to fall to 4-11. Since then, they’re 104-76, for a .578 winning percentage (~94 wins per 162 games).

by phatj on May 6, 2008 9:52 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

that’s fantastic. hopefully we can keep the pace up… as a side note… i realize it’s a young season right now, but i’m getting a feeling that i really haven’t had for awhile… i think the NL may actually be superior to the AL as a whole this year. Statistically the top 8 BAs are in the NL and 9 out of the top 10, the top four HR leaders and 8 out of the top 9 are in the NL, 7 out of the top 9 RBI leaders are NL. And the top 10 in the pitching statistics pretty much break down 50/50. To me it just seems like for the better part of a decade the AL seemed to dominate everything. Offensively/Defensively… I mean really look back and how many times did you think to yourself that whatever team came out of the NL was going to get their asses handed to them in the WS? I did alot.

As I said it’s a young season, but right now I’d be alot more worried about getting through St. Louis or Arizona in the NLCS than Boston or the Angels in the WS… Anyone feel the same way?

by foos05 on May 6, 2008 10:50 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Not so much, no.

The AL is still the far better league. Not that the World Series-which is as vulnerable to randomness as any seven-game stretch-always bears this out.

If the NL does much better in interleague than in past years, maybe I can buy this. Not yet, though.

by dajafi on May 6, 2008 12:29 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I think there is much more young talent in the NL. The AL bought all the good talent for the last 10 years or so, but much of that talent is aging,

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on May 6, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

That could be. I can buy the argument that it’s starting to swing back (and on the margin at least maybe it helps that Santana and Haren came into the NL this past offseason).

I’m kind of curious now, so maybe I’ll look up the interleague records over the last few years later on when I get home.

by dajafi on May 6, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Looking at the top performers in stuff like BA and RBI won’t help you divine which league is the best. It does reveal, though, that the NL is somehow outscoring the AL, which is amazing considering the DH rule; NL teams are scoring 4.63 runs per game, AL teams are scoring 4.40. Weird. Doesn’t mean that the NL is better, though.

My theory about the appearance of diminished AL strength is that the AL seems to have more parity this year. In the NL, there are at least 2 or 3 teams per division that are simply bad—Florida and . The AL seems to have a bigger “middle class,” with teams like the Blue Jays, Royals, A’s, White Sox, Mariners and Rays all fielding teams that are flawed but have a decent amount of talent. As a result, the leveled playing field in the AL obscures the fact that they’re playing on a higher plane than the NL.

That’s just my theory, anyway. Interleague play is the only surefire way to figure this question out.

by bugbear on May 6, 2008 5:19 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs