As the Braves enter their second week of games, I feel that it is worth adding a dash of perspective to the doom-and-gloom that has been hovering over these parts lately. Let's think back to a year ago. After 2 weeks of the 2009 season, do you remember which teams were in playoff position? I bet you don't. Here are the 9 teams who would have made the playoffs (or been tied for a spot) after Week 2 of 2009:
That's right. Only 1 of the 8 eventual playoff teams (the Dodgers) was in playoff position after 2 weeks. You could literally do a better job by picking teams at random. Only 2 other 2009 playoff teams (the Cardinals and Yankees) were even above .500 at that point. The Red Sox and Twins were 6-6. The Phillies were 5-6. The Rockies were 4-7. The Angels were 4-8.
This may seem obvious, but it really isn't when your team is playing poorly: a bad two-week stretch is not a death sentence, even (especially) if it occurs at the beginning of the season. Likewise, getting off to a hot start is no guarantee of future success. Just ask the 2009 Blue Jays or Padres.
Lots of fun charts and graphs after the jump...

To see just how big of a difference there was between a team's performance in the first 2 weeks and its performance over the whole year, I plotted each team's Week 2 winning percentage versus its final winning percentage. In the graph below, the further a team is above the black line, the more it overachieved in the first 2 weeks. Likewise, the further below the black line, the more it underachieved.
As you can see, there is a huge amount of variation. Six of the 8 playoff teams underperformed their eventual records in the first 2 weeks. In addition, all 9 of the teams that were in playoff position after Week 2 played worse the rest of the year, in many cases much worse. And it's not just a case of regression to the mean, either--of the 12 teams that were over .500 after Week 2, 5 finished under .500. Similarly, of the of the 12 teams that were under .500 after 2 weeks, 6 finished above .500.
Another way of looking at this issue is to consider the difference between a team's final winning percentage and the winning percentage it had after Week 2. Here is a graph of the differences for the 2009 NL. Positive numbers means the team played better after Week 2, and negative numbers mean the team played worse after Week 2. (Click on the image to enlarge it if you need to.)
Here is the same graph for the 2009 AL:
What these graphs should tell you is that a team's record in the first 2 weeks is usually not indicative of its final record. Seven teams experienced a winning percentage swing of .200 or more, which is a huge amount--a 32-game difference over a full season. Eighteen teams experienced a swing of .100 or more points. In fact, the average difference (positive or negative) was .136 points, or about a 22-game difference over a full season. For you statistics nerds out there, the standard deviation was 0.161.
At this point, if you haven't already closed your browser or started listening to Joe Morgan's Greatest Hits, you may be wondering if the 2009 season was just a fluke. Well, it was pretty fluky, but it was far from a complete fluke. I looked at data from the last 3 seasons (2007-2009) to try to get a more complete picture. First, I looked at how the 24 teams that made the playoffs in those years were doing after Week 2:
Over 40% of eventual playoff teams were under .500 after 2 weeks. I wonder how agonized their fanbases were?Only 29% of playoff teams were in playoff position after Week 2, and that's counting teams that were tied for a spot. These percentages are almost exactly the same as the overall averages. That means that eventual playoff teams were doing no better than average after 2 weeks.
Here's the same chart for Contenders (teams that finished at or above .500 but did not make the playoffs):
Interestingly, these good but not great teams were doing much better after 2 weeks than the teams who actually finished ahead of them. Nearly half were in playoff position as of Week 2, and nearly 3/4 were .500 or better. What this seems to imply is that good teams are less likely to get off to a bad start than great teams are. If anyone can offer an explanation as to why this might be, I'd be interested to hear it.
Here's the same chart for teams that finished below .500:
As you probably expected, most bad teams got off to bad starts. Still, 46% were at or above .500 after Week 2, and 17% were in playoff position. That's a large amount of overachieving. Another way of putting this is that 1 in 6 bad teams started the season very well before their true (lack of) talent caught up to them.
Putting this all together, I think we can safely say that a team's record after 2 weeks is not a good indicator of its eventual record. In other words, the world does not end if a team is not doing well after 2 weeks of the season. So please, do not worry or gripe or rend your clothing if the Braves are 4-7 or 5-6 after the Rockies series.
Of course, that sort of begs the question: When should we start worrying or griping or rending our clothing?
To find out, I looked at the standings after various points of the past 3 seasons. I then compared these standings to the final standings from those years. Basically, I'm trying to find the point when a team that is in playoff position is much more likely to actually make the playoffs than a team that is below .500. Or in other words, at what point should we start to actually believe a team's record?
For this graph, I found all the teams that were in playoff position (counting ties) after Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12. I then determined what percentage of those teams actually went on to make the playoffs. For reference, 27% of all teams (8/30) make the playoffs and about another 28% contend for a playoff spot. The remaining 45% of teams finish below .500.
After Week 2, a team in playoff position is no more likely to make the playoffs than any other team. After Week 4, however, nearly half of all teams in playoff position make the playoffs. By Week 8, only 4% of playoff-positioned teams end up under .500.
Here's the same graph for teams that are above .500 but not actually in playoff position:
Teams that are contending after Week 2 are no different from the average team. As the season goes on, there does not appear to be any particular trend. A third of contending teams fall off and finish under .500, even after Week 12. Somewhere between 1/6 and 1/4 of contending teams rise up and make the playoffs.
Finally, here's the same graph for teams that are under .500 during the season:
A team that is under .500 after Week 2 still stands a perfectly average chance of making the playoffs--no different from the chances of a team that is in playoff position. As the season goes on, though, an under-.500 team's playoff chances dwindle, from 19% after Week 4 to only 7% after Week 12.
To sum up:
I hope this article helped cheer you up after last night's game. It's too bad there's no game tonight, but we're back on the field tomorrow. Most importantly, the Braves are still only 3-4 despite how badly they've played. If the team plays anywhere near its potential for the last 155 games, we'll have nothing to worry about.
0 recs | 139 comments
Seriously worried after 8 weeks, concerned after 4 weeks.
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
It also depends on how many games below .500 we are. I mean, I would be comfortable being 1 game under .500 even as late as July.
justincredubil02 - April 13, 2010
Of course, good point.
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
So What You are Really Saying is...
….Stats don’t mean a whole lot, just yet.
DawgB - April 13, 2010
Haha
Exactly
Jacob Peterson - April 13, 2010
Just Curious
Is there a stat that tells us when stats become meaningful?
DawgB - April 13, 2010
Nope.
You have to rely on intuition. And scouting.
soup du jour - April 13, 2010
Yeah, I was going to ask the same thing. If you could go through and find a bunch of players that started off really poorly last year but then ended up having outstanding seasons. Might be too much work though.
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
Yeah
I was thinking of that, but probably won’t get around to it. Suffice to say that I’m sure you could find dozens of players who started slowly and had great years (and vice versa). It’s just the nature of the game.
Jacob Peterson - April 13, 2010
Mark Teixera (or however you spell it). I do know that one for sure. He took off once A-Rod came back from his hip surgery.
dunnytwogloves - April 13, 2010
And LaRoche
Mr. Sanchez - April 13, 2010
Sort of
You can always run regression analysis on a statistic to see how meaningful it is at a given point, but it varies from stat to stat. It also depends to a large degree on where the cutoff is for “meaningful”.
I’d say that no stat is meaningful in any way without at least a month’s worth of data. For hitting stats and SP stats, 2 months is probably the baseline for when they start to mean something (but still not that much). For relievers, bench players, and defensive stats, it’s much longer than that.
Jacob Peterson - April 13, 2010
Came across this link over at Bay City Ball
It’s an old fangragh’s article where they tackle this question for different statistics
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/when-samples-become-reliable/
Basically, it takes more PA than anyone would think before numbers really stablize, and for some, like BA and BABIP, even 650 PA isn’t enough
GTwill - April 13, 2010
stdev?
I never hear this mentioned, but it’s the only one I’m familiar with. Seems easy and straightforward, so there must be a reason it doesn’t work.
Anyone?
someguy1 - April 14, 2010
That’s not really what standard deviation measures. But the real issue is that there’s nothing that will say Yes/No to the question “Is this meaningful?” There are procedures that will give out numbers for how meaningful something is, but at some point you still have to go in and interpret the number. (Technically, some of the procedures require that you pick a threshold of meaningfulness before you do them, and they’ll then give you a Yes/No answer.)
AllSaintsDay - April 14, 2010
My concern...
is that offensively we look like the same team from last year. Hopefully Glaus will pick it up, if not we’re in serious trouble.
mdhenshaw - April 13, 2010
The Same???
No Francouer, Anderson, Johnson, Norton. Instead, we have, Glaus, Heyward, Prado, Hinske and McLouth/Diaz/Cabrera
DawgB - April 13, 2010
I mean in terms of production. LaRouche had a huge 2nd half and we still weren’t great offensively. Even if Heyward picks up LaRouche’s slack someone else has to step up. We’re still bad at lead-off.
mdhenshaw - April 13, 2010
We didn’t have LaRoche for the 1st half, we had Kotchman. So we are already ahead of the game from last year.
DawgB - April 13, 2010
We do need a leadoff batter. How about Prado?
DawgB - April 13, 2010
prado >>>>>> melky
then again a wet sack of cement would probably be able to equal his OBP
jman07 - April 13, 2010
Someone missed the entire point of this post.
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
DawgB - April 13, 2010
right now
i have as many wins and a lower era than jj, does that mean i should be put in the rotation?
jman07 - April 13, 2010
Could make for any entertaining inning or two, provided you kept us in the game.
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
hmm…that looks familiar.
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
Yeah, I love the author.
DawgB - April 13, 2010
Some
one:=)HEYJUDE - April 13, 2010
I really regret not bringing Andruw back this offseason.
justincredubil02 - April 13, 2010
I know it's early...
I have been behind Terry Pendleton; however, if Kelly Johnson (.368) and Francoeur (.476) have big years it’s going to be difficult to defend him.
mdhenshaw - April 13, 2010
dude chillax
wait til kelly hits .213 in the months of june and july. just like the teams performance through 2 weeks means squat, so does that of individual players. if prado continues hitting .562 for the season, itll be easy to defend terry pendleton
jman07 - April 13, 2010
+1
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
Kelly and Frenchy
are both known for their hot and cold streaks. They will come back down to earth.
Also hitting coaches should not be held responsible for individual players’ performances. There is absolutely 0 evidence to suggest that they have any effect at all relative to each other.
Jacob Peterson - April 13, 2010
frenchy's hot streak
is running since midseason 2009….
He’s saying the right things in NY.
someguy1 - April 14, 2010
And his OBP continues to nearly mirror his AVG. When his BABIP falls back in line with his career norm, he will suck again.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
Yeah, definitely not the type of guy to continue to support a ~.400 BABIP
Smoltz's Beard - April 14, 2010
But Matt Diaz can?...
the way French hacks up there, if he has improved making contact he’ll hit the ball hard wherever it goes. Over a career it’s not sustainable, but like I say, compare him to Diaz.
Mr. Sanchez - April 14, 2010
I would agree to some extent, but Diaz has a history of just dominating RHP and he has shown improved plate discipline. Frenchy? Meh.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
Don’t you mean “dominating LHP” with regard to Diaz?
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 14, 2010
Yes. Yes I do. Gracias.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
I agree...
but both are free swingers. Diaz may walk a little more, and strike out a little less, but if Jeffy reduced Ks and started putting the bat on the ball more, as hard as he hacks he might have an abnormally high babip for a non-speedy right hander ala Diaz.
Mr. Sanchez - April 14, 2010
md, I'll admit I've had these same thoughts,
it just hard for me not to. It seems odd that when we trade a player that is not playing well offensively, and they begin to start hitting well, my mind begins to think, was it TP, the change of scenery, or they just came out of their slump, and will fall back into it in the near future.
HEYJUDE - April 13, 2010
seriously
enough about TP. the effect a hitting coach has on a player is highly overrated. without looking it up, name me 5 ML hitting coaches. ill even give you 5 minutes. go. when a hitter is struggling, its always the hitting coaches fault, yet when a guy is tearing the seams off the ball, they never get credit. if you’re going to blame TP for struggles from guys like kelly and jeff, i sure hope you give him credit for guys like mccann, chip, and diaz.
jman07 - April 14, 2010
TP, Mattingly, Jarillamo…ok, I’m out.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
McGwire…?
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 14, 2010
Dammit! I had a brainfart.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
We’re still one short, though (I thought of the same three you did + McGwire).
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 14, 2010
Don Baylor is as well isn't he?...
I don’t think he’s managing.
Mr. Sanchez - April 14, 2010
Will we one day, have a Chipper Jones in that list?
NCChopper - April 14, 2010
This.
I’ve always thought that Chipper should be given TP’s job. He should transition right into it the year he retires (2013?). Chipper could even bring his dad on as an assistant hitting coach.
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 14, 2010
Who is Jarillamo?
10-4 - April 14, 2010
jaramillo…my bust.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
Mac and Chipper,
give their Dad’s the credit for making them into the hitter’s they are today, and when they are struggling they go to them for advise not TP, just sayin’ :)
HEYJUDE - April 14, 2010
what about prado, diaz, etc?
im not saying TP is the best hitting coach ever, my point is that i think he gets a bum rap. TP can give tips/hints but he cant hit for them and he cant make frenchy/kelly/andruw stop flailing at low and outside curves/sliders.
jman07 - April 14, 2010
One good game, but yeah it’d still be nice to have him around.
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
I concur...I love that guy...I wish he was still a Brave.
Looking skinny too!!
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7410331&c_id=cws
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7413075&c_id=cws
mvandonsel - April 13, 2010
Me too.
I love that when he was here last week, the Braves fans gave him an ovation in BP for the “homer” he fired up into the (upper-deck outfield) 755 club, after hitting about 5 or 6 into the lower level outfield seats.
Lizziebeth - April 13, 2010
Great pic ,
Thanks for sharing :)
HEYJUDE - April 14, 2010
You’re most welcome
Lizziebeth - April 14, 2010
to do what?...
he’d be a duplicate of Diaz, with worse on base and contact. What would Andruw provide, outside of a reason to have kept Heyward down?
Mr. Sanchez - April 13, 2010
Power. Defense.
justincredubil02 - April 13, 2010
I guess I should have been more specific...
to do what, WHERE? We’ve got Hinske, Glaus, Melky, Diaz, McLouth, and Heyward, so he’s not playing 1B or the OF. You could say keep Heyward down, but he is kind of the best OF we got right now, playing the best of our 4 OF, and the problem would still be there after two weeks or two months or however long you wanted him down as delaying his service time. Personally, I’d take all 4 of our OFs before Andruw. I’m a big Andruw fan, but I wouldn’t expect his production over the full season to be on the same level as any of Melky, McLouth, Diaz, or Heyward.
Mr. Sanchez - April 13, 2010
didn’t you forget that Melky sucks? McLouth too.
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
I would start AJ in LF. Personally, I’d go AJ, Nate and JH in the OF with Melky as our 4th. Diaz’ trade value will never be higher and Hinske can be the backup CI.
Mark it down, Andruw Jones will finish the season better than any of our current OFers.
justincredubil02 - April 13, 2010
I agree with this to a point…I think Heyward will finish with better numbers than Andruw.
mvandonsel - April 13, 2010
OBP and AVG, sure. I think AJ takes HR and RBI though.
justincredubil02 - April 13, 2010
Nice...
so you’ve gone from Diaz should be our leadoff hitter to Diaz should be trade fodder.
Mr. Sanchez - April 13, 2010
And what is wrong with that? I have also said that I think JJ is a great trade candidate.
I do take exception to one thing though: There is a difference between someone without a position (Diaz obviously is inferior to Andruw Jones both with the bat and in the field) having extremely high trade value, and someone being trade “fodder”. Charlie Morton was trade fodder. Matt Diaz is a trade commodity.
justincredubil02 - April 13, 2010
Disagree on Diaz as inferior to Andruw at the plate...
he may not match Andruw’s power, but he does a much better job of making contact and getting on base. And has been proven in the past, it’s hard to get fair value when trading someone you’ve just signed out of a roster spot.
Mr. Sanchez - April 13, 2010
Andruw would be better than milky for sure, maybe Nate. But he let his career go to crap fpr years due to being lazy. It was good not to bring him back.
FitzFan - April 13, 2010
Except he hit 17 HRs last year, lost 30 pounds in the offseason and so far, looks pretty dang good in Chicago…
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
For real?...
“looks pretty dang good in Chicago”?
Again, small sample size. He looks good, in one game and one pinch hit appearance. Otherwise, Andruw is 0-1, 0-3, 0-3, 0-3. But he had the game winning RBI on a single Monday and a big day Monday. In just 15 at bats, he has as many strikeouts as hits (4).
Mr. Sanchez - April 14, 2010
You do realize that “looking good” and “getting results” are two different things, right?
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
Yes,...
one is subjective and the other objective.
Mr. Sanchez - April 14, 2010
One also leads to the other when given time.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
You assume.
Mr. Sanchez - April 14, 2010
I mean, there are exceptions, but generally speaking, when a player shows good plate discipline and they look good at the plate (in a non-subjective manner – ie taking bad pitches, not swinging at balls they can’t do anything with, etc) they will eventually get good results.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
Andruw Jones hit another home run tonight…
Food for thought…besides Jason Heyward none of our other outfielders have a home run, Andruw now has three in 20 plate appearances. He also has 4Ks to his 3BB…
mvandonsel - April 14, 2010
Like I said, I wish we had signed him. He is easily better in all facets of the game than any of our OFers with the possible exception of the Rook.
justincredubil02 - April 15, 2010
We’ve just to make Melky our 4th OF and let Hinske split time in LF with Diaz, as well as getting some work at 1B and even 3B if we need him to. Hinske can hit righties way better than Melky can. We’re a week in and I’m already calling for his butt to go to the bench.
timmy3 - April 13, 2010
What, me worry?
Lizziebeth - April 13, 2010
Nice to see Alfred E. Newman is still alive and kicking.
DawgB - April 13, 2010
I can’t find Joe Morgan’s greatest hits in iTunes, someone help me out please?
HansonManCrush - April 13, 2010 via mobile
Look under "Oldies"
Jacob Peterson - April 13, 2010
lol, Blue Jays
I just remember watching MLB Network last year, and them having highlights of “Let’s see what the Division leaders are doing,” and then you’d see all those shiny 3-D team emblems on the home plate flash on the screen of like the Blue Jays, Tigers, and Padres, etc.
And then the Blue Jays came to Atlanta and got swept, and that pretty much was the beginning of the end for them.
royhobbs - April 13, 2010
I hope we don't play really well for the next week... cause then we could be leading the division which would mean that we shouldn't make the playoffs!
EyePod - April 13, 2010
What we really oughta be worried about is whether or not JHey will hit a homer tomorrow to stay on pace for 81
ATLBRVS_19 - April 13, 2010
If not then I’m over him and this team!
McGriff the Crime Dog - April 13, 2010
My rule of thumb after decades of watching baseball is that I don’t put much stock into win-loss records or playoff position until June 1. On June 1, if the Braves are within 4 or 5 games of a playoff spot with no major health problems, then I like their chances. For whatever reason, they have a long track record of starting off slow then playing extremely well in the second half of the season.
redwards95 - April 13, 2010
I always figured it was the weather
someguy1 - April 14, 2010
It's a double edged sword
My concern over the Braves poor play is proportional to my concern over their good play. Let’s face it, the Phils are stacked to win…past, present and future.
One week in is way to early to panic, but we can’t put ourselves in a big hole to start the season. In other words our ability to withstand poor play is restrained by how well our divisional competition (mainly the Phillies) does.
Smoltz was always a very keen watcher of the standings. He always stressed in his comments – “we can’t let this gap widen, we can’t drop back seven, etc.” The mathematical probabilities of a 162 game season are going to trump good play eventually.
DCP916 - April 13, 2010
surprised Justin has gone into one of his anti-Phillies rants in response to this post.
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
I haven’t seen this post until now, but the very fact that this goober says that the Phillies are built to win in the future when their top 5 offensive players have contracts that expire either this year or next leads me to believe that he is about as clueless as my left nut.
justincredubil02 - April 13, 2010
if anyone thinks the Phillies have a brighter future than the Braves
they’re freakin nuts.
Scott Coleman - April 13, 2010
NOO
im already panicking we suck we are the worst team EVAR. Our only good pitcher is Lowe cuz he WINZZZ. Heyward sucks send him to the minors and Melky REALLY sucks. As some of you can tell i am kidding i am not to concerned only that Melky sucks as leadoff guy.
Erihury - April 13, 2010
I feel that our second half of the season is going to be great. The closer we get to it being Bobby's last
season/game, the harder they are going to play. The fans will be filling the stadium as well, as they want to see one last game under Bobby’s management.
I’m not worried, we will turn this thing around.
HEYJUDE - April 13, 2010
Im signing off
Im out of here until we start winning again cause i cant stand the tone of this thread. cant put up with it. theres no crying in baseball. boo hoo, we are 3-4. We won a series at home and we lost a series in a park that we almost never do well in against a team thats only loss is to US.AND that has one of the best staffs in baseball. Did i enjoy the game yesterday? Not at all! But we will still pick up the next two in SD then come home again. (OPTIMISM…try it out)
bluelg - April 13, 2010
lol
Smoltz's Beard - April 13, 2010
Our record might feel worse than it is to those of us paying attention because of a) how completely our offense has been shut down at times and b) that some of our winning has been greatly aided by the ineptitude of our opponents.
eavchuck - April 13, 2010
It’s sad when you have to show graphs to people to have them calm the freak down. It’s only April (hell it’s only the second week). Let’s see where we stand come end of May. That’s when we should be worried or happy. Until that time comes, let’s just enjoy the game of baseball.
romone_braves91 - April 13, 2010
Did you ever watch the Matrix
And if so, remember the part where Link is showing Neo all these cool things, but all Neo sees are green numbers and symbols cascading down the screen?
Some of us nerds are kind of like that. Numbers, graphs, and charts are all we see in the world, and only with the right combination of zeroes, ones, and weird symbols do I know I’m having a filet mignon for dinner.
royhobbs - April 13, 2010
This is how I like to imagine that Jason Heyward sees the world…
mvandonsel - April 13, 2010
lol
Jacob Peterson - April 13, 2010
We should pick up Jermaine Dye!!!!!!!
BravesFanScout - April 13, 2010
NOO
GREG NORTON
Erihury - April 13, 2010
I honestly wouldn’t mind this.
I really do want Diaz to be the full time LF though. sigh
Sparhawk - April 13, 2010
So…you want diaz to be full time in LF? That’s fine, but that leaves only CF and RF open. RF is currently being occupied by Jesus, so that won’t work. And Jermaine Dye in CF would be suicidal, so that won’t work either.
Where would he play?
Scott Coleman - April 13, 2010
Wouldn't an outfield of Jermaine Dye, Nate McLouth, Jason Heyward be great?
that would be a sick outfield. Jermaine Dye still has some pop. He hit 27 bombs last year and 34 the year before that. He was an MVP candidate a couple of years ago. I think we could probably pick him up and not have to break the bank to get him
BravesFanScout - April 13, 2010
It would be pretty good offensively, but Dye anywhere in the OF would be scary. Like Garrett Anderson scary. There’s a reason Dye hasn’t been signed yet and it’s because he can’t field anymore and his offensive skills are on the decline. I’d rather have Diaz and Melky.
Scott Coleman - April 13, 2010
Jermaine Dye anywhere in the field would be suicidal
If it weren’t for Brad Hawpe, he’d be the worst outfielder in baseball right now (assuming Donkey sticks at 1B). DO NOT WANT
Jacob Peterson - April 13, 2010
Frank Wren is a racist if he doesn’t offer Dye a contract of at LEAST 8 mil per by the end of this week. Orlando Hudson said so himself!
UMDBHIK - April 13, 2010
Yes
we should also sign Ray King. If he doesnt Wren is a total racist
Erihury - April 13, 2010
Why all the gloom and doom?
Our ace is tied for lead in wins, Heyward second in homeruns, and a brave is leading the race for the batting title!
Trek - April 13, 2010
So you’re sayin’ there’s a chance………
10-4 - April 13, 2010
hahaha
Nice.
Jacob Peterson - April 13, 2010
There's nothing to worry about
Braves did well against a tough team to start the season, got shipped out west for a nasty early road swing (while the Phils hung out on the East coast with the Nats and Astros). Blew two late leads in San Fran.
Sure, last night was an abberation. Its a tough task to hit the road out west this early against two teams on their opening homestands. The silver lining here is that Atlanta gets this road trip out of the way early.
kalesi - April 13, 2010
If those wonderful graphs didn't convince you...
In 2001, the Braves went 12-14 through April and were just 26-26 at the end of May. They went on to go 19-9 in June en route to a 88-74 season and a division win.
In 2002, the Braves went 12-15 in April. They finished the season 101-59, which included a 21.5 game lead in the division at one point in September.
In 2003, the Braves had a torrid start of 17-10 through April and didn’t slow down, finishing 101-61. Note, however, that this season featured the same amount of wins as the previous one, when the Braves lost 3 more games than they won in April.
In 2004, the Braves were 11-10 through April but just 25-25 through May and 37-40 through June. They then went on a blistering tear of 20-6 in July and 20-8 in August to finish 96-66—leading the division by 10 games as late as October 2.
Then, in 2005, the Braves finished at 90-72, a lower win total than they had amassed in the past 3 seasons, but actually went 14-10 in April.
And at that point the great run of division titles ended… but!
2006: Finished 3rd with a 79-83 record; 10-14 in April.
2007: Finished 3rd with an 84-78 record; 16-9 in April. Note that 16-9 is similar to the Atlanta record of 17-10 in 2003, when the team ended the season with 101 wins.
2008: Finished 4th with a 72-90 record; 12-15 through April.
2009: Finished 3rd with an 86-76 record; went 10-11 in April.
I love whining as much as the next guy, but there’s no reason to flip out. It’s a marathon, not a race.
Ivan the Great - April 13, 2010
Let’s rec the shit out of this, please?
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
People always forget this at the start of the year...
…and the end of the year. Why is that, you ask?
At the start of the year, there are only a few games that have counted.
At the end of the year, there are only a few games left (although its arguable that this is more important because its crunch time).
It’s a 162 game schedule…not April and September (and October nowadays…).
DogDaysofSummer - April 14, 2010
Excellent!
……but a marathon is a race.
everyone’s a critic
someguy1 - April 14, 2010
Clearly, what he meant was
“it’s a marathon, not a sprint”
Jacob Peterson - April 14, 2010
+1
Smoltz's Beard - April 14, 2010
Thanks Ivan,
I came back today to post these numbers. Good work…..
HEYJUDE - April 14, 2010
By the way...
You guys fear JoJo Reyes but he is nothing like the pure terror that Dan Kolb was. “Oh man, we are bringing in an All-Star reliever from Milwaukee!”
Jesus, that was painful….
DogDaysofSummer - April 14, 2010
I'm not worried yet
…but a 15% chance is not a significant chance after eight weeks. There’s a 70% chance you’re not even contending. That’s far more significant.
OrangeBritches - April 14, 2010
It is significant
As I stated above, 27% of teams make the playoffs. So a 15% chance, comparatively, is still pretty good, considering that the team has wasted 1/3 of its season. That’s not much more than a 1/3 reduction in playoff probability.
As for the 70% chance of not contending, that’s admittedly daunting, but you have to consider the # of games under .500 that a team is at. The Nats last year had 0% chance of contending because they were so far under .500 after 8 weeks, but many teams that were only a few games under .500 had a much better chance. I didn’t have the time or space to make the graphs more granular, but if I had, you’d have seen that the slightly-under-.500 teams are not much worse off than the contending teams.
Jacob Peterson - April 14, 2010
r^2 of that graph?
My suspicion is that should read, “As you can see, there is no statistical correlation.”
I love the understated point of this post though. Graphs and charts to placate the doomsayers.
someguy1 - April 14, 2010
the r^2
was about .1
So there was some correlation. Not very strong though.
Jacob Peterson - April 14, 2010
To me the month of May is really what matters
The braves have a somewhat difficult schedule in April so if they come out of it close to .500 they are doing pretty good in my book (4 remaining series left in month are the Rockies, Phillies, Mets, and the Cards. None of these are particually easy series except for maybe the Mets if they continue riding on the bullet train to last place).
The real kicker is in May when the Braves play the Lastros, the Nats, the Phils, the Brewers (a team I’ve always had trouble figuring out), the DBacks, the Mets, the Reds, the Pirates (twice) and the Marlins. They have to win a large percentage of those games against some teams that are, to put it nicely, struggling if they are actually serious about going to the playoffs.
So I guess what I’m trying to say is that if the Braves aren’t at least around .500 at the end of next May (which is the 8 week mark) then you should be worried. Until then, enjoy baseball.
DogDaysofSummer - April 14, 2010
+1
Great point about the May schedule. I suspect we’ll win around 2/3 of those to get ourselves into it.
Jacob Peterson - April 14, 2010
Gosh, the Nats, Reds and Buckos all swept us last year, IIRC.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
hush, you.
We also swept the Nats twice, iirc.
Jacob Peterson - April 14, 2010
+1
Smoltz's Beard - April 14, 2010
Something to think about as well
25-37 is the Braves’ Interleague record since 2006, with 8-7 and 7-8 being the last two years respectively. As pointless as Interleague is, it’s still integral to win those games, and with this year’s lineup being the AL Central minus the hapless Indians, and for whatever inexplicable reason, Tampa Bay, it’s not going to be a cake walk.
royhobbs - April 14, 2010
Agree 100 percent. These games count too! Interleague is one reason the Twins have been so successful the past several years, because they always have one of the best interleague records every year. If you go 11-4 or 10-5 versus 7-8 or 8-7, that’s 2-3 extra wins you’re picking up, which in a tight race means a lot. Unless, of course, you lose the last 6 games of the season.
UMDBHIK - April 14, 2010
Catching up on the "post padres beating" threads...
Good to see we didn’t have a rash of “We’re Doooooooomed!” ones.
Lots of good rational stuff. Anticipated no less from the knowledgeable TCers and the ability to look at stats/trends etc. (that would make my head hurt) and share for discussion.
Like I’ve said before, I’m not worried. It’s only April.
Now, if we go into June and these same trends of lack of offense continue…. the concern will be there.
NCChopper - April 14, 2010
I think what MB says below sums up, why would have no reason to panic after our first seven games:
HEYJUDE - April 14, 2010
Boom.
justincredubil02 - April 14, 2010
And those two teams didn’t have Derek Lowe either!
We are guaranteed to win 166 consecutive games now.
UMDBHIK - April 14, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.