Let's Just Face It: The Phillies Suck at Spring Training (and It Doesn't Matter)

by David S. Cohen on Apr 3, 2009 12:50 PM EDT

The Phillies finished spring training with a very disappointing record of 12-18-2. Or, maybe it's not a disappointing record and it just doesn't matter.

When you look at the numbers, there's really no reason to care one bit about spring training records. As I've done before, I'm posting here the Phillies spring training records compared to their regular season records for that year. This chart omits the tie games in spring training. The last column shows the improvement in the team's record in the regular season compared to spring training (or how much the team got worse, if the number is negative).

Year	Spring			Regular			Improve
2003	10	17	0.370	86	76	0.531	0.161
2004	10	21	0.323	86	76	0.531	0.208
2005	11	18	0.379	88	74	0.543	0.164
2006	19	11	0.633	85	77	0.525	-0.108
2007	11	18	0.379	89	73	0.549	0.170
2008	12	18	0.400	92	70	0.568	0.168
Total	73	103	0.415	526	446	0.541	0.126

There are a few things to note from this chart:

First, the Phillies had almost an identical record last year in spring training that they had this year. The only difference, not visible in the chart, is that they tied one more game this March than last March. If you are concerned at all after this year's March record, just looking at last year's record compared to last year's regular season result should make you happy.

Second, the Phillies have shown in the past that their spring performance doesn't matter. They regularly improve their winning percentage by .160 or more over their March performance. With one exception - the year the Phillies were good in spring training, they were worse by .100+ in the regular season.

Third, the Phillies suck at spring training. I don't know the reason, but it's quite obvious looking back at seven seasons worth of data that the team is just not good. Adding this year's record into the data into the chart, the Phillies are 85-121 over the past 7 springs, for a winning percentage of .417. That's awful.

But it doesn't matter, so I don't care. And neither should you.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Yeah. But don’t they also tend to suck at April? Could be a relationship there.

by taco pal on Apr 3, 2009 1:55 PM EDT reply actions

Click on my link to last year

I analyzed the relationship between spring and April in that piece. Click on the link to see the numbers. Here’s the conclusion:

In five Aprils, the Phillies were better than they were in the spring; in three of those five, much better. In two Aprils, they were worse; in fact, in both of those Aprils, they were much worse.

At best, someone trying to make the argument that spring training records mattered could possibly claim that while the team gets better in April, it gets much better throughout the course of the year, so it seems to need time to rev up after its poor spring. That theory is also plausible, but at this point, I think we’re getting too close to guesswork.

Until more is shown to develop that theory, it seems quite clear to me that the team’s spring performance, which has been quite dreadful of late, does not carry over into the regular season. But it also seems quite clear that March is the team’s true cruelest month.

by David S. Cohen on Apr 3, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Last year their April was OK—above .500—so if they can repeat that or better, color me happy.

by doubleh on Apr 3, 2009 2:06 PM EDT reply actions

Ok, time for a deeper look...

I think the bad Spring Training has a decent correlation with the Phils ability to make the playoffs. Basically, I see a bad spring training record and I think there is a huge dropoff from our everyday starters to our replacements. Take a couple of big guns out and we are toast. Thus, teams that have good spring training records are more capable of filling the injury hole.

The Phillies have been lucky the last two years to not get a huge hit with injuries. Really, just an Utley and Rollins month misses and a couple of little Howard stretches. I am not so sure we can keep that kind of luck up. It may be the #1 reason why the Phils went 86-76 for 15 straight years. The droppoff to our minors was bad enough to keep us from really getting over the top. So, this means we need to be lucky.

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Apr 3, 2009 3:08 PM EDT reply actions

I wonder if a more focused comparison, like the last two weeks of ST to the first two weeks of the season, would yield a stronger correlation. At least by some accounts, teams are actually trying to win games in the second half of March, and the lineups you see tend to be closer to who will play when they start recording results.

On the other hand, the intensive digging one would have to do to compile enough data to make that analysis sounds about as much fun as unanaesthetized dental work.

by dajafi on Apr 3, 2009 3:22 PM EDT reply actions

I’d be shocked if there was any correlation, negative or otherwise.

I know the Phillies’ spring record in 1993 has been oft-cited as a reason to “get off to a good start.” Not that that performance wasn’t meaningful for that team, but March 2008 kind of shows that there’s more than one way to be a winner. So to speak.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Apr 3, 2009 4:00 PM EDT reply actions