Are You One Of Those People

[RZNJ]

Who say spring training stats mean nothing and then use them in an argument whether it's for or against a certain player?

[justD]

I know from sooooo many spring trainings that what happens during these brief few weeks of ramp-up almost never translates into what happens during the season.  And yet, I find myself relying on what happens to justify opinions on who makes the roster and who gets sent down, opinions on how far a minor leaguer is likely to go in the long run, but also more rational (in my mind) selections of who to watch in the upcoming season, especially in the minor leagues. 

I see guys drafted, then they disappear from view in Sarasota or even in the lower levels, and then even when they get to the AA and then AAA level are facing competition that may or may not be challenging them enough. 

So seeing them perform in Spring Training, especially when they're set up against Major League opponents, and seeing their stats over time in these situations, really does inform me a lot, to see what might really be there. 

Admittedly, I may be relying more on the eye test than stats tho.

[24fps]

I think a small sample size is nonetheless some sample size and from a practical standpoint it is virtually impossible to completely discount it when trying to make a judgement. I believe that is likely to extend to Mike Elias as well. 

[Billy F-Face3]

I'm 50/50. I take Spring Training results in moderation and with caveats. If it's a young player trying his hardest to make the team for the first time, I take those a little more seriously than I do veterans who are secure in their roster spot. The Vets who know they have a role already are more likely to tinker and experiment with new things in Spring Training. (I.E. a pitcher trying a new pitch, or a batter trying a new stance, etc.)

As for my evaluations, it might be helpful to reveal my thoughts of last Spring Training. I thought that from how well Logan Gillaspie pitched in ST he would make the team and he did. However, I was also convinced that Lewin Diaz would be called up to the Orioles at some point because of how good he was in Spring Training, and that never happened. (Although it did for Jon Lester and Ryan O'Hearn).

So it's 50/50.

I've stopped trying to make predictions. I like being right more than being wrong and I'll admit when I don't have a clue about something.

[foxfield]

In fairness, human nature lets us believe in the good stats. Particularly when it’s from young players. And it lets us dismiss the poor stats. Especially from the vets. 
 

Reality says it may mean something…or it may mean nothing. 

[clapdiddy]

Spring training may help a younger guy get noticed by some people who may not have seen them before.  But overall, I think almost all of these guys have a pretty good idea where they are going before they arrive in Florida/Arizona.

[Frobby]

Sometimes spring performance means something, sometimes it’s meaningless.  You kind of have to leave it to the professionals to determine which is which.  

[George Zuverink]

15 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Sometimes spring performance means something, sometimes it’s meaningless.  You kind of have to leave it to the professionals to determine which is which.  

You could say that about any opinions expressed on this board, but what fun would that be?

[forphase1]

Depends on the situation I suppose, and the track record of the player in question.  A vet who has proven himself to be good, or bad, isn't someone that I put a bunch of weight on their numbers, good or bad.  Two examples right now.  I don't really care about how good Burnes has looked or what his numbers currently are in the spring.  He's been one of the top pitchers in baseball for the past handful of years, and I trust he'll be fine.  At the same time I don't really care that Mateo has a .943 OPS this spring.  I've seen enough of him over the past few seasons to be fairly certain just what we have, and what we don't have, with him, so his spring training numbers don't really move me much.  

Rookies are a bit different to me.  Unlike most 'vets', the rookies are still improving and have room to grow, so to speak.  They are also, in some cases, facing their first real taste of MLB pitching, though of course we know many of the pitchers in the spring will be in the milb come OD, and even the pitchers that are going to make the MLB teams aren't often on the top of their game or giving full effort.  But it still is the first real taste we get of them against something other than just their minor league peers.  Since they have a much smaller body of work than a vet, their spring training numbers tend to carry more weight with me simply as they don't have years of prior stats to either discount spring struggles or spring successes.  

Spring training numbers need taken with a grain of salt, sure.  But just like most of us use SOME SSS numbers to help reinforce our thoughts and opinions, spring is the same way, SSS though with more volatility behind them, IMO.  

[Jammer7]

I think they mean a little something, but it is more about the process. Mediocre or poor process can yield good results briefly, but it will be exposed when the season gets rolling. Spring training games are exhibition games to get the players ready for full speed and a regular season workload. You’d rather have good results, but it really doesn’t matter much. The coaches see the work that goes on behind the scenes, and that tells the bigger story.

[Aristotelian]

I am definitely guilty of this. Just makes the spring more interesting if you think the stats matter when we all know they don't.

The one thing that's worth paying attention to is injuries or physical changes, like a pitcher getting a bump in velocity. One example is when Britton showed up to camp throwing that 98 mph sinker and all of a sudden people started talking about him as closer. I was naturally skeptical but the spring speculation turned out absolutely correct in that case. 

Of course, similar comments were made about Jason Garcia when we grabbed him in the Rule 5 the following year. Stuff like, "He throws 98 and the ball has a different sound when it hits the catcher's glove". We all remember how that turned out. 

[Satyr3206]

It's hard to judge. I remember the Spring Eddie Murray had to make the team. I also remember many mirages.

[BohKnowsBmore]

[SilverRocket]

I think they can matter but not at face value. Veteran pitchers are going to be tuning their pitches more than trying to get guys out. But young players without a guaranteed spot will at least be trying to showcase their skills and make the team.

Stowers' 7 HRs are somewhat relevant in my eyes. That is such an outlier number that I imagine it has to move the needle a bit, especially with two in the last game being against a big league veteran.

I don't put much stock in Jackson Holliday's spring training OPS. He got a gift triple, and his one success vs a lefty was against the third fastball in a row from one of said veteran pitchers who was probably just working on his fastball that inning, so I think it's probably a bit inflated. Though for all I know, he got unlucky in the ABs that didn't make the news.

I imagine the front office has access to more useful numbers than what we see, taking into account the pitchers they faced, the set of pitches they faced, etc. Those numbers are more likely to be used to make a roster decision.

[Moose Milligan]

They’re all meaningless.