Al Yellon
Editor
It's Gotta Be The Hair - May 15
Grant Brisbee
Editor
Tarasco Sauce - May 16
Jeff Sullivan
Editor
Mission Accomplished - May 16
Rob Neyer
National Baseball Editor
Baseball is Unpredictable - May 12
Dan Moore
Contributor
Joey Votto And The Twilight Of The Giant First Basemen - Apr 14
Jason Brannon
Hot Corner Scribe
Len Kasper Has Been Over Into The Future... - May 15
Jim Baker
Contributor
eBay Item Of The Day - May 15
Marc Normandin
Contributor
The Royals And Pitcher Development - May 15
Wendy Thurm
Contributor
On Being Young And Brash In The Social Media Age - May 12
Apr 27, 2011 - In April (and forever, really), we talk a lot about "small sample size" (SSS).
Small sample size explains Placido Polanco's .380 batting average, and Jered Weaver's 0.99 ERA. Small sample size explains the Legend of Sam Fuld. Well, begins to explain it.
We just shouldn't pay much attention to players' statistics in April, because they mean little relative to what the players have done in previous seasons. I'm often asked by radio hosts when the numbers "really start to mean something," and of course the correct answer is that there's not a particular moment when the numbers become meaningful. With each day, they become a little more meaningful than the day before.
That said, when it comes to players I really don't pay much attention to statistics until sometime in May, or early June. That's not science. It's preference, and probably habit.
Team performance seems different, though.
It seems like every April -- near the end of April, anyway -- I look at the standings and they make sense.
Right now, how many big surprises can you find?
The Yankees are in first place, the Orioles in last.
The Rangers are in first place, the Mariners in last.
The Phillies are in first place, the Mets in last.
The Cardinals are in first place, the Astros in last.
The Rockies are in first place, the Padres in last.
There are six divisions, and only one of them is truly surprising. I think it's safe to say that nobody expected the Indians to sit atop the standings with a 14-8 record nearly a month into the season. Nobody really expected the Twins and White Sox to bring up the rear, with run differentials to match.
Sure, there are some other surprises, in the middle of the standings. The Red Sox figure to having a winning record eventually. Ditto for the Braves, and the Marlins might eventually fall back to the pack. But with those minor exceptions, it's hard to find teams that haven't already found their natural level, as measured by our preseason expectations.
Postscript: Just as a reality check, here are last year's standings after roughly the same number of games. Again, not many surprises, at least relative to how the season ended up. The Red Sox were losing, and everybody in the American League West was sitting around .500. The Mets were winning, and the Braves were losing. Otherwise, though, not much was amiss in late April.
That doesn't mean some crazy stuff won't happen between now and October. But most of the real work is done before the season. Within the limits of luck and various other mysterious things, these teams enter the season as the teams they will be.
5 comments
Mickey Hatcher, Angels Hitting Coach, Relieved Of Duties
Vance Worley Has 'Soreness', Will Miss Wednesday Start
Justin Morneau Will Be Activated From DL Wednesday
Manny Ramirez Rehab Assignment Will Start Saturday In Albuquerque
Jon Jay Heading To Disabled List; Shane Robinson Recalled
Troy Tulowitzki Day-To-Day With Deep Leg Bruise
Matt Kemp Goes On 15-Day DL With Sore Hamstring
Jeff Niemann Likely Missing 'A Few Months' With Leg Injury
VIDEO: Bryce Harper's First Career Home Run
Torii Hunter Placed On Restricted List Following Son's Arrest
More News »
Comments
Everyone
is within 7.5 games of each other. Anything can happen. And don’t tell me that the Nats and Marlins are better than the Mets. Don’t tell me that the Indians are better than the White Sox or the Twins.
by Ken FS on Apr 27, 2011 7:10 PM EDT reply actions
Marlins are definitely better than the Mets
Who do you think the Mets are?
by Free_AEC on Apr 27, 2011 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll grant you the Nats. Even as a fan, I have no idea how they are winning games.
But what makes you scoff at the Marlins? The Mets may have a lineup edge…but who do they have on the mound. The rotation isn’t nearly as good as the Marlrins’. On what grounds are you rolling your eyes at the MArlins being better than the Mets?
And while anything can technically happen…1) history says “anything” doesn’t really happen that often, and 2) you contradict that very idea by writing off teams like the Nats, Marlins and Indians. (ie if anything can happen, why can’t those teams win? If their performance to date means nothing and ‘anything can happen’ why is their losing inevitable…is it perhaps, because by the end of April we CAN tell something about how the season will progress?)
by Kalaska on Apr 27, 2011 9:05 PM EDT reply actions
Saying anything can happen
means that there is a small chance of, lets say, the Nats and Indians winning their respective divisions. But the standings are misleading, because on paper, some of the best teams are not doing so hot at the moment (see Red Sox). Its too small of a sample size to really say anything. And yes, I’ll concede that the Marlins have a better rotation than the Mets. But the Marlins offense is not nearly as good, and the gap between the Mets and Marlins pitching is smaller than the gap between the Mets and the Marlins offense.
by Ken FS on Apr 28, 2011 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Boston is 7-3 over their last 10 games.
I would say they are doing pretty good , at the moment.
by Rick B on Apr 28, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed