Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. RichRifkin
Posted: March 25, 2001 at 06:48 AM (#66121)
It's almost as if Spring stats are a Rorschach test: if they are bad, you can say, "Spring Training numbers are meaningless"; or, you might conclude that "Millwood's 17+ ERA is an ill omen for his 2001 campaign, especially in light of his struggles in 2000." What is undeniable, however, for all hitters and pitchers, whether their Spring numbers are good or bad, is that the sample size is very small.
2. RichRifkin
Posted: March 25, 2001 at 06:48 AM (#66381)
It's almost as if Spring stats are a Rorschach test: if they are bad, you can say, "Spring Training numbers are meaningless"; or, you might conclude that "Millwood's 17+ ERA is an ill omen for his 2001 campaign, especially in light of his struggles in 2000." What is undeniable, however, for all hitters and pitchers, whether their Spring numbers are good or bad, is that the sample size is very small.
3. RichRifkin
Posted: March 25, 2001 at 06:48 AM (#66921)
It's almost as if Spring stats are a Rorschach test: if they are bad, you can say, "Spring Training numbers are meaningless"; or, you might conclude that "Millwood's 17+ ERA is an ill omen for his 2001 campaign, especially in light of his struggles in 2000." What is undeniable, however, for all hitters and pitchers, whether their Spring numbers are good or bad, is that the sample size is very small.
4. RichRifkin
Posted: March 25, 2001 at 06:48 AM (#67707)
It's almost as if Spring stats are a Rorschach test: if they are bad, you can say, "Spring Training numbers are meaningless"; or, you might conclude that "Millwood's 17+ ERA is an ill omen for his 2001 campaign, especially in light of his struggles in 2000." What is undeniable, however, for all hitters and pitchers, whether their Spring numbers are good or bad, is that the sample size is very small.
5. RichRifkin
Posted: March 25, 2001 at 06:48 AM (#66122)
It's almost as if Spring stats are a Rorschach test: if they are bad, you can say, "Spring Training numbers are meaningless"; or, you might conclude that "Millwood's 17+ ERA is an ill omen for his 2001 campaign, especially in light of his struggles in 2000." What is undeniable, however, for all hitters and pitchers, whether their Spring numbers are good or bad, is that the sample size is very small.
6. RichRifkin
Posted: March 25, 2001 at 06:48 AM (#66382)
It's almost as if Spring stats are a Rorschach test: if they are bad, you can say, "Spring Training numbers are meaningless"; or, you might conclude that "Millwood's 17+ ERA is an ill omen for his 2001 campaign, especially in light of his struggles in 2000." What is undeniable, however, for all hitters and pitchers, whether their Spring numbers are good or bad, is that the sample size is very small.
7. RichRifkin
Posted: March 25, 2001 at 06:48 AM (#66922)
It's almost as if Spring stats are a Rorschach test: if they are bad, you can say, "Spring Training numbers are meaningless"; or, you might conclude that "Millwood's 17+ ERA is an ill omen for his 2001 campaign, especially in light of his struggles in 2000." What is undeniable, however, for all hitters and pitchers, whether their Spring numbers are good or bad, is that the sample size is very small.
8. RichRifkin
Posted: March 25, 2001 at 06:48 AM (#67708)
It's almost as if Spring stats are a Rorschach test: if they are bad, you can say, "Spring Training numbers are meaningless"; or, you might conclude that "Millwood's 17+ ERA is an ill omen for his 2001 campaign, especially in light of his struggles in 2000." What is undeniable, however, for all hitters and pitchers, whether their Spring numbers are good or bad, is that the sample size is very small.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. RichRifkin Posted: March 25, 2001 at 06:48 AM (#66121)You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main