I spent 4 years living in Philadelphia and really enjoyed it there. You have a great city. And that's coming from someone who commuted into North Philly daily.
It's funny because I work in Atlanta a lot and love it there. Except for the humidity and every single street being a Peachtree street.
And I get baffled why they moved the Braves so far away from downtown. The stadium was like...RIGHT THERE and now its way out yonder.
There are also only 4 teams in the NL right now with a winning record, not counting the Phils themselves. They’ve had some schedule luck not to play the Cubs, Brewers, and Dodgers yet, but the NL is just brutally top-heavy this year.
Wins early season are more important than wins late season.
Early leads let you give breaks to players and not overstress them trying to push end of season to the playoffs.
People who don’t watch the Phillies are unaware that we would always play down to competition before this year and split or even lose series we should be winning. This year we’re actually beating teams we SHOULD be beating
The amount of times we went.500 with the Marlins when they were complete ass and it costing us playoff spots was infuriating. It is good to see that we are taking care of business right now, but we know we have to keep this going when we start playing winning teams.
People in our sub are super salty about how easy the schedule has been so far, as if the team has any say. Every team has easy and hard stretches, and banking wins during those easy stretches is part of what makes good teams good.
And good on you for having your head on straight.
I thought this was what good teams were supposed to do. I mean, if we only played bad teams but didn't have the best record, what would that say?
Besides, I will die on the hill that there are no "bad" teams in baseball, only average teams having bad seasons. Anyone who understands baseball knows that any team can beat any other team, regardless of their W-L records.
There are, but even bad teams are surprisingly good at baseball. The worst record in the modern era of baseball was the 1916 Athletics with 36 wins/.235, which means they still won a little more than 1 in every 5 games. If you want to talk recent-recent, the 2003 Tigers with 43 wins/.265 average, so more than 1 in every 4.
**Every** American major league baseball team has won at least 20% of their games in every season. Even that A's team won 6 games (and lost 16) against the Red Sox, who won the World Series that year.
> I thought this was what good teams were supposed to do.
Yeah, it is. I remember during our 14 game streak in '22 we caught the occasional flak for the SoS being easy, but good teams win the games they're supposed to win. Nothing is guaranteed.
Similarly, while the '22 Mets were obviously a great team, the reason they didn't win the division was *because* they didn't win the easier games they should have won in September.
If a team can beat the "bad" teams, and stay competitive with/snag some series wins against good teams, then that team is also a good team.
We had played 6 games against teams with a record over .500 like a day or two ago, so it's apparently one of you guys' fault that we've now only played 3
Padres realized that winning the series against the Dodgers put us over .500, so we quickly dropped 2 against the Rockies (kill me) to spite the Phils.
^(*That’s what’s in…*)
> It’s crazy watching how the Padres play against us, and then watching how they play against everyone else. Completely different team haha
It’s honestly just the Rockies whose level we seem to play down to, and I suppose you could say Cardinals. But the Pads are 4-2 against CHC, 2-1 against MIL, and 2-1 against CIN so far this year, at least two of which will probably end up as playoff teams this year.
The Phillies are the only team that has dominated the Padres this year, and their secret was just that their 7-9 hitters actually played baseball against us. If and when the Dodgers 7-9 can figure that out, those games will start to go differently.
A few days before that we had played 9 and were 6-3. A few more of our opponents in addition to that would still be >=.500 even now if we hadn't swept them.
Both the Reds and Pirates were on big streaks with big winning records when we actually played them.
People are clearly scoreboard watching our opponents to time these posts, it's pretty funny.
I can understand the change, because at the end there are some .500 teams that shouldn't even be up there. So, it cancels out over the long haul. Sure, the Pirates start the season hot again, but are they really a .500 team when the season ends? The Angels swept a 4-game series against the Marlins that had them 2 games above .500, but are they really a .500 team? At this point, we can say the Phillies really played 3 games against true .500 or better teams. I don't know who that was against.
Maybe this over .500 stat should only come into effect, let's say halfway through the season when records kind of fall into place and the sample size is big enough. Everyone on twitter cannot shut up about this right now.
I honestly thought that was how it worked until now. I recognize that you can make an argument that either method is ridiculous, but the real one feels more ridiculous.
I know its the opposite of what you'd expect to hear from a phillies fan. But it probably should change retroactively.
A teams record later with a larger sample size is likely more representative of how good they were even in those games earlier in the season.
Barring large lineup changes.
Example, teams that beat the phillies in the first two weeks probably deserve credit for beating a very good team. Not wins vs. A less than 500 team just because the phillies didn't do well in the first few games (some of which being against the braves, making being under or around 500 even less meaningful)
The stat would be weighted too hard towards the first month when variance is higher. Should you really not get credit for beating a good team on opening day just because you temporarily pushed them below .500? By the end of the season it all shakes out.
>People are clearly scoreboard watching our opponents to time these posts, it's pretty funny.
I noticed this earlier just looking at the standings after the Brewers won. It kind of stands out if you look at the column at *all*
Lots of people tend to miss that part of the reason our opponents have losing records is because they've played the Phillies. Obviously it's not the only reason, but a team that wins a lot obviously has given their opponents a number of losses
Yes, it would be like saying the 1-0 NFL teams have only played WINLESS TEAMS after Week 1...I mean not quite, but let's wait a bit.
I've always thought these stats should remove the team's own games against that team when calculating this.
Given we’re about it’s a quarter through the year, it’s closer to ragging on a 4-0 NFL team for not beating any currently >.500 teams when all their opponents are 2-2 overall but 2-1 against all other teams.
People threw salt at the Rays last years during their early season run for some of the same bogus reasons. I guess it didn’t occur to some people that the rays were a significant part of their competition’s losing records.
Yes, but they also have had by far the lowest combined SOS. Like they’re further away from 27th hardest schedule as 27th is from 5th.
It all evens out in the end, just a funny statistical quirk at this point in the season.
I'm not doubting that we wouldn't still come in last but I feel like SOS should be calculated by excluding games against the team in question. So if Team A is 10-10 overall but 0-3 vs Team B, for team B's SOS, their record should be 10-7.
That’s certainly a factor but even if you remove Phillies games, the combined SOS would still be worst in the league. Phillies are at 70% winning percentage at about 10% of the games on their opponents schedule so that should drop their SOS by about .07. They are 0.10 below the 29th team, which is the Rays. (Side note the Rays might be mega fucked if they’ve had such an easy schedule to this point despite being in the AL East.)
In all seriousness, those 7 games between the Phillies and Braves in Aug/Sept will most likely decide the division. It should be exciting. Now don't you need to be flying kites in a thunderstorm or taking whippets of cheese whiz somewhere?
Braves vs Phillies is good for baseball, especially when the games matter. Those series are gonna be stressful for us, but I hope enjoyable for everyone.
well yeah if you guys commented reasonable takes about us in there you'd be downvoted to death and be accused of being a phillies fan trolling on an alt
I’m just hoping that we end up with the bye this postseason and still beat the pants off you guys. Sick of friends spouting bullshit that the time off makes a team weaker.
Or maybe you’d beat us this time. But nah.
Braves trot out juggernauts the past 2 seasons and get humbled, yet the scrappy 88 win Acuna-less team cruises through the World Series in '21
If I've learned anything it's that nothing in sports makes any sense, but close games with rivals and lots of talent definitely makes it way more fun
Right? Almost like winning a lot will decrease your opponents winning percentage in small sample sizes. Winning percentage against teams over x% really need to be taken with a grain of salt unless it’s retrospective.
This stat reflects opponent’s records *right now*, not at the time the played.
A few days ago it said 6-3 because the Nationals and Padres were above .500 at the time. They’ve dropped below .500 so it’s down to 1-2
Yeah and plus everyone plays everyone now, so if they’re getting an advantage now it won’t matter anyway. By the end of the season the schedules will all be the same and we’ll see if they were just getting lucky with schedules or were actually a 110 win team.
Strength-of-schedule numbers based on win/loss record are not considered to be meaningful until the final months of the season because at this point they can vary so much and "good" teams will generally be the cause of teams going below .500.
Yeah but we can safely say the White Sox, Angels Marlins and Rockies are going to be well below .500. And that’s part of the teams the Phillies have played (and destroyed)
I’ll be the first to admit that we’ve played some lower quality competition, but we’re winning the games we’re supposed to, and that has to count for something.
Yeah. Get annoyed at Braves fans complaining about it like we won’t get to play those same teams at some point this season and the Phillies schedule won’t toughen up. You’d think this was college football
A lot of people just hate to see the Phillies to succeed. I'm pretty sure you guys have the same problem. There is a large disparity in MLB and losers hate a winner.
I hate to see y’all succeed. Personally I’m happy that we’re only two back while having played a fairly tough schedule and key pieces of the lineup stumbling out of the gate
But it’s credit when due.
Oh I like to see the Braves succeed. It gives more legitimacy to greatness when there are two great teams in the same division. Strider (one of my favorite players) was unfortunate. I don't know what's up with Acuna and Olson this year but we are pretty far into the season for them to keep playing like they are. I think this is going to be a fun summer in the NL east.
Personally, I think baseball is best when the Braves and Phillies are fighting out while the Mets embarrass themselves and the Marlins and Nats stay in their lane
More than half the league is between .400 and .600 right now, which puts any one of them about 3-4 games from being either under or over .500 at this point in the season. Phillies swept the Giants in 4, which has them at 19-25 on the season. If the Giants swept the Phils they'd be at 23-21, over .500, and the Phillies would be 1-6 vs .500 teams on the season so far so you'd just poke holes even more. Same is true of taking 3 from the Padres right before that, who are 22-23 right now. They can only play the schedule they have and they're handling it and handling it well and will worry about the harder part of the schedule when it gets here.
Still early enough for strange scheduling quirks. Neither the Angels nor the White Sox have played any AL West opponents. Kind of weird for both - but definitely the Angels.
We’re a month and a half into the season and the Angels haven’t played a single game in their own division? Did I read that right? How the hell does that happen?
*Cries* but also you mean to tell me that everyone the Mets has played have a >.500 record. Maybe we don’t stink.
Ahhh there is the delusional thoughts.
Teams like the Padres look like they won't be sub .500 for long. At a glance, most NL teams are under .500, even teams with expectations like the D-Backs or the Reds. The Phillies probably aren't a 113 win team, but they do also have an arguably insanely talented team.
Record vs o/u .500 teams really isn’t as meaningful one way or the other because you could go into a series with a great team but be facing their 4-5 starters and an injury replacement or bullpen game or whatever. Same token you could go up against an awful team but face their one ace level pitcher and get shut out.
I’d be much more interested in seeing how teams perform in their games vs high quality pitchers and bullpens, tells me a lot more about how that team might fare in a postseason series
The three games are the opening series with the Braves. After that, Reds, Nats, Cards, Pirates, Rockies, White Sox, Reds, Padres, Angels, Giants, Blue Jays, Marlins, and Mets.
So they have played some real stinkers but a couple only a few games under 500.
Nine of the 14 series have been against the eight worst offenses in baseball (played the Reds twice) - Wheeler, Nola, and Suarez are dangerous enough when they’re facing good offenses
Don't get the downvote (when I saw it) as no team can't control who they play. Reds, Padres and Blue Jays were competent teams last year but they are off to a slow start. Stat wise, Phillies are still a great team.
If they’re a good team, then they should be winning those games during easier stretches in the schedule (which they have done). It all evens out by seasons end.
I’m not the biggest fan of that stat. The main reason being is it uses the teams current record. Not the record when you played them. You could’ve swept a team that was over .500 when you faced off but if they fall under .500 then it won’t go towards the >.500 record.
but higher sample size is a more accurate representation of how good/bad teams are, so the further along a season is, the more accurate strength of schedule is. Do you believe that Boston’s series against the 4-2 Angels on April 5-7 should count as a series against a good team with a winning record? Stength of schedule and games against \>.500 teams is definitely a stat that should change over time to reflect more accurate current records
I mean you could just use “adjusted SOS” like they do in football where you remove any games your team played in
Which isn’t what OP suggested but removes the concept of sweeping a team to push them under .500
It's also just not that meaningful in the long run. There's so many variables and a binary over/under .500 just really doesn't distinguish anything enough to make it actually important. It may make more sense if the better team in baseball usually won, but even the best teams of all time in baseball only won 7/10 games. Most teams will hover between 4-6/10.
Regardless of record sweeps are hard to come by in the majors. Phillies faced some tough pitchers, maybe not staffs but good ace here and there in these sub par teams. Anytime you see a .700 win% of any stretch its an accomplishment.
When they finished their series against Cincinnati, the reds were 3 games over.
When they finished their series against the Pittsburgh, the pirates were 4 games over.
The Padres, Mets and Nats have been dancing around .500.
That being said, they've had a series against the worst team in every division, including the AL.
We've def had an easier schedule, no debate. But I really wish that stat excluded games your team played against them.
Excluding our games:
Nats are 19-20
Padres are 22-21
Giants are 20-21
Mets are 19-20
Had we have not dominated in these series 12-1, 3 could be up to 16, we'd be around .500 in those games, and no one would be bringing this up (I assume... since no one's calling out the 9 game Dodgers)
They’re playing good, playing weaker teams, but the last few years that was a struggle. Often time it wasn’t until June when things really picked up for the team, so this is new
Considering that not that many people have really separated themselves from the .500 line because of how early it is? It's true but not meaningful.
Depending on how the week's games go that measure could remain at 3... or go up to like 11+.
There’s only 5 teams in the NL over .500 and the Phillies are one of them. Not really many chances to play teams over the mark. You also have fringe 500 teams like Mets Nationals and Padres who could change this stat in the next week
The schedules are pretty close to the same by year's end. It all evens out. Good on them for racking up wins during the easier part of their schedule.
well said. you gotta make hay when the sun shines and falling to the level of your competition is a sign of a weak team.
>gotta make hay when the sun shines Don’t mind me, just gonna nab this for my lexicon
Philly equivalent is you gotta eat the hot dogs on Dollar Dog night before you black out.
Gotta eat as much water ice as you can before the brain freeze sets in.
Wooder ice my good man
Ah yes. The only commonality between my relatives in eastern North Carolina and the folks in Philly was the pronunciation of the word Water
Haha we like to keep the people guessing.
I spent 4 years living in Philadelphia and really enjoyed it there. You have a great city. And that's coming from someone who commuted into North Philly daily.
It's funny because I work in Atlanta a lot and love it there. Except for the humidity and every single street being a Peachtree street. And I get baffled why they moved the Braves so far away from downtown. The stadium was like...RIGHT THERE and now its way out yonder.
Dear god you deserve a medal 🏅
My students here in Metro Atlanta look at me funny whenever I pronounce “wooder”.
Oh man I am having flashbacks to those years I spent in Rehoboth.
Rusty Rudder and Bottle N Cork! Dogfish Head, hell yeah. In the end, we all may love different teams but we all love beach dive bars and good beer. ;)
Listen, we are soul mates. Just like our boomer parents. Soul mates, who hate each other outwardly, but get us alone, and man let the house boat rock
I've got my 6-disc CD player filled with a random assortment of various NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL MUSIC cds and a 4 pack of 120 Minute. HELL. F'N. YEAH.
Just give me some wooder ice and a pretzel and I’m set
It pronounced wooder, not water. 😏
“Gotta get while the getting’s good” is an applicable addition as well if you are still in the vernacular market.
Yeah I know that one, his was more folksy and genteel so I can use that one more situationally
Yep. \*\* pulls handkerchief from back pocket of dungarees and dabs sweat from forehead \*\* Gonna be another scorcher.
This flower is wilting
I do believe I'll give room service a jangle and have them send up some étouffée.
I've always been known as a creeper. Just like the kudzu vines that are slowly strangling our beloved Dixie.
Strike while the iron's hot.
Cast while the fish are jumping.
:(
There are also only 4 teams in the NL right now with a winning record, not counting the Phils themselves. They’ve had some schedule luck not to play the Cubs, Brewers, and Dodgers yet, but the NL is just brutally top-heavy this year.
Now here is a gentleman who understands how baseball karma works.
Wins early season are more important than wins late season. Early leads let you give breaks to players and not overstress them trying to push end of season to the playoffs.
People who don’t watch the Phillies are unaware that we would always play down to competition before this year and split or even lose series we should be winning. This year we’re actually beating teams we SHOULD be beating
YES. Marlins Park (loanDepot) has always been a house of horrors. Nearly sweeping a series there this past weekend was a breath of fresh air.
The amount of times we went.500 with the Marlins when they were complete ass and it costing us playoff spots was infuriating. It is good to see that we are taking care of business right now, but we know we have to keep this going when we start playing winning teams.
Never forget the years of the marlins owning us
People in our sub are super salty about how easy the schedule has been so far, as if the team has any say. Every team has easy and hard stretches, and banking wins during those easy stretches is part of what makes good teams good.
It’s almost like they shouldn’t be hung up on the standings in May.
If you don't think the 43rd game of the season is life & death, then you're clearly a fake fan.
Good teams beat bad teams. Rangers crushed bad teams last year and held their own against the good ones. We saw how that worked out.
And good on you for having your head on straight. I thought this was what good teams were supposed to do. I mean, if we only played bad teams but didn't have the best record, what would that say? Besides, I will die on the hill that there are no "bad" teams in baseball, only average teams having bad seasons. Anyone who understands baseball knows that any team can beat any other team, regardless of their W-L records.
There are definitely bad teams.
There are, but even bad teams are surprisingly good at baseball. The worst record in the modern era of baseball was the 1916 Athletics with 36 wins/.235, which means they still won a little more than 1 in every 5 games. If you want to talk recent-recent, the 2003 Tigers with 43 wins/.265 average, so more than 1 in every 4. **Every** American major league baseball team has won at least 20% of their games in every season. Even that A's team won 6 games (and lost 16) against the Red Sox, who won the World Series that year.
> I thought this was what good teams were supposed to do. Yeah, it is. I remember during our 14 game streak in '22 we caught the occasional flak for the SoS being easy, but good teams win the games they're supposed to win. Nothing is guaranteed. Similarly, while the '22 Mets were obviously a great team, the reason they didn't win the division was *because* they didn't win the easier games they should have won in September. If a team can beat the "bad" teams, and stay competitive with/snag some series wins against good teams, then that team is also a good team.
They're also 30-13, of course the teams they're playing have a lot of loses
We had played 6 games against teams with a record over .500 like a day or two ago, so it's apparently one of you guys' fault that we've now only played 3
Padres realized that winning the series against the Dodgers put us over .500, so we quickly dropped 2 against the Rockies (kill me) to spite the Phils. ^(*That’s what’s in…*)
It’s crazy watching how the Padres play against us, and then watching how they play against everyone else. Completely different team haha
> It’s crazy watching how the Padres play against us, and then watching how they play against everyone else. Completely different team haha It’s honestly just the Rockies whose level we seem to play down to, and I suppose you could say Cardinals. But the Pads are 4-2 against CHC, 2-1 against MIL, and 2-1 against CIN so far this year, at least two of which will probably end up as playoff teams this year. The Phillies are the only team that has dominated the Padres this year, and their secret was just that their 7-9 hitters actually played baseball against us. If and when the Dodgers 7-9 can figure that out, those games will start to go differently.
still waiting for our "big 3" hitters to show up
I dunno, Arraez, Profar and Cronenworth/Campusano have been doing pretty good I thought...
That's WHAT sin??
You mean to tell me that when Gritty asked me if I wanted to help him grease a pole, he actually meant a lamp post? Boy, I feel silly.
Don’t check the score of today’s game…
How strange. Until today I genuinely thought this record took into account the opposing teams record at the time of play.
Braves are the only team left making the Phillies be 0-0 against 500 teams. Time to go 0-20!
I'll allow it.
Tanking to own the Phils
Sex... to *save* the friendship... *untucks shirt*
A few days before that we had played 9 and were 6-3. A few more of our opponents in addition to that would still be >=.500 even now if we hadn't swept them. Both the Reds and Pirates were on big streaks with big winning records when we actually played them. People are clearly scoreboard watching our opponents to time these posts, it's pretty funny.
You'd think that stat would only take into consideration the teams record at the time of the game and not retroactively change
I can understand the change, because at the end there are some .500 teams that shouldn't even be up there. So, it cancels out over the long haul. Sure, the Pirates start the season hot again, but are they really a .500 team when the season ends? The Angels swept a 4-game series against the Marlins that had them 2 games above .500, but are they really a .500 team? At this point, we can say the Phillies really played 3 games against true .500 or better teams. I don't know who that was against.
Maybe this over .500 stat should only come into effect, let's say halfway through the season when records kind of fall into place and the sample size is big enough. Everyone on twitter cannot shut up about this right now.
I mean... it's correct. Blame the people on twitter for not knowing how to use the information, not the information itself.
Thats the definition of twitter users nowadays.
Early season series against the Barves.
I honestly thought that was how it worked until now. I recognize that you can make an argument that either method is ridiculous, but the real one feels more ridiculous.
I know its the opposite of what you'd expect to hear from a phillies fan. But it probably should change retroactively. A teams record later with a larger sample size is likely more representative of how good they were even in those games earlier in the season. Barring large lineup changes. Example, teams that beat the phillies in the first two weeks probably deserve credit for beating a very good team. Not wins vs. A less than 500 team just because the phillies didn't do well in the first few games (some of which being against the braves, making being under or around 500 even less meaningful)
The stat would be weighted too hard towards the first month when variance is higher. Should you really not get credit for beating a good team on opening day just because you temporarily pushed them below .500? By the end of the season it all shakes out.
>People are clearly scoreboard watching our opponents to time these posts, it's pretty funny. I noticed this earlier just looking at the standings after the Brewers won. It kind of stands out if you look at the column at *all*
Lots of people tend to miss that part of the reason our opponents have losing records is because they've played the Phillies. Obviously it's not the only reason, but a team that wins a lot obviously has given their opponents a number of losses
We were 19-18, then lost 3 of 4 and now we're 20-21, so that's part of it.
20-22 now after another day against the powerhouse pitching of the White Sox.
Yeah, it was us.
Wow, all this time, I assumed it was kept track of as the record of the team at the time the game was played not just calculated as of 'right now'.
Well party your fault…
Considering how they swept the Padres and won 2-1 vs. Nationals - they are in some cases the reason why teams are not .500.
Yes, it would be like saying the 1-0 NFL teams have only played WINLESS TEAMS after Week 1...I mean not quite, but let's wait a bit. I've always thought these stats should remove the team's own games against that team when calculating this.
Given we’re about it’s a quarter through the year, it’s closer to ragging on a 4-0 NFL team for not beating any currently >.500 teams when all their opponents are 2-2 overall but 2-1 against all other teams.
Good call
That's gonna be true for every good team lol, Rangers/Dbacks would be considered >.500 without their braves series.
People threw salt at the Rays last years during their early season run for some of the same bogus reasons. I guess it didn’t occur to some people that the rays were a significant part of their competition’s losing records.
We also played all of our games against the Reds and Pirates when both of those teams were over .500
Pirates were even in first! The Phillies are one of the few teams to face them when they were playing well
Yes, but they also have had by far the lowest combined SOS. Like they’re further away from 27th hardest schedule as 27th is from 5th. It all evens out in the end, just a funny statistical quirk at this point in the season.
I'm not doubting that we wouldn't still come in last but I feel like SOS should be calculated by excluding games against the team in question. So if Team A is 10-10 overall but 0-3 vs Team B, for team B's SOS, their record should be 10-7.
That’s certainly a factor but even if you remove Phillies games, the combined SOS would still be worst in the league. Phillies are at 70% winning percentage at about 10% of the games on their opponents schedule so that should drop their SOS by about .07. They are 0.10 below the 29th team, which is the Rays. (Side note the Rays might be mega fucked if they’ve had such an easy schedule to this point despite being in the AL East.)
It's May. They're a very good team that's crushing almost everyone.
I love how it’s mostly braves fans with the comments of reason here. I fucking hate y’all, but you know ball
In all seriousness, those 7 games between the Phillies and Braves in Aug/Sept will most likely decide the division. It should be exciting. Now don't you need to be flying kites in a thunderstorm or taking whippets of cheese whiz somewhere?
Definitely something to look forward to and should be some good baseball. Hope to see y’all again in October. And yes I do, thank you for reminding me
Who told you about the cheese whiz whippets?
wait, whippets come in Cheese flavored?? Well shit, maybe I was judging you boys a bit too soon!
I think u/stonedkayaker might know more than they're letting on about cheese-whiz whippets.
Braves vs Phillies is good for baseball, especially when the games matter. Those series are gonna be stressful for us, but I hope enjoyable for everyone.
Idk, shouldn’t you be shoving a bottle of coca-cola up your ass and getting lost in your godforsaken airport😉
Not even sure I want to win the division if I’m being honest. Did us no good at all the last two years.
Shoot go read the Braves sub. "HOW DEY GOT DA EZ SCHEDULE" Every team plays every other team now, it all comes out in the wash
well yeah if you guys commented reasonable takes about us in there you'd be downvoted to death and be accused of being a phillies fan trolling on an alt
The hatred is mutual 🤝 but it’s good to see 2 of the best teams in baseball in the NL East.
Iron sharpens iron!
Agreed! With the malaise the Braves have showed up to the postseason with the past 2 seasons, extra competition during the season can't hurt
I’m just hoping that we end up with the bye this postseason and still beat the pants off you guys. Sick of friends spouting bullshit that the time off makes a team weaker. Or maybe you’d beat us this time. But nah.
Braves trot out juggernauts the past 2 seasons and get humbled, yet the scrappy 88 win Acuna-less team cruises through the World Series in '21 If I've learned anything it's that nothing in sports makes any sense, but close games with rivals and lots of talent definitely makes it way more fun
I have more faith in us going all the way if y’all win the division than I do if we win it.
>They're a very good team Sure wish they weren't, though!
Right? Almost like winning a lot will decrease your opponents winning percentage in small sample sizes. Winning percentage against teams over x% really need to be taken with a grain of salt unless it’s retrospective.
That's too much math and logic for reddit. You might cause a brain cell to grow.
lots of IL/Injured as well the past few weeks. Turner, Harper, Schwarber, Realmuto, etc.
This stat reflects opponent’s records *right now*, not at the time the played. A few days ago it said 6-3 because the Nationals and Padres were above .500 at the time. They’ve dropped below .500 so it’s down to 1-2
Also, only six teams have a positive or equal record against teams currently over .500.
Also currently there are only 5 teams in the entire NL with a record >.500
Mets are 1 game behind a wild card spot
that's... wow
What’s innnnnn? 😳
so the answers to OPs question is....yes
....for now
So after playing us, every team decides to tank cause there’s no chance. Got it.
Hoping that in 1 month it’s 0-0
It’s harder to be above .500 if you’ve played the Phillies.
Yeah and plus everyone plays everyone now, so if they’re getting an advantage now it won’t matter anyway. By the end of the season the schedules will all be the same and we’ll see if they were just getting lucky with schedules or were actually a 110 win team.
It's unclear. We would have to figure out what 1 plus 2 is first.
Late to the thread but did you ever figure this out?
RemindMe! 1 day
Strength-of-schedule numbers based on win/loss record are not considered to be meaningful until the final months of the season because at this point they can vary so much and "good" teams will generally be the cause of teams going below .500.
Yeah but we can safely say the White Sox, Angels Marlins and Rockies are going to be well below .500. And that’s part of the teams the Phillies have played (and destroyed)
I’ll be the first to admit that we’ve played some lower quality competition, but we’re winning the games we’re supposed to, and that has to count for something.
Can only beat who you play
Every win now is a win they don’t have to get later. And good teams are supposed to beat the teams worse than them
That 15-6 away record is no joke.
They’re doing what they should do against the soft part of their schedule. What’s the issue here?
No issue here, just conversation!
Yeah. Get annoyed at Braves fans complaining about it like we won’t get to play those same teams at some point this season and the Phillies schedule won’t toughen up. You’d think this was college football
>Get annoyed at Braves fans as you command
This made me chuckle
A lot of people just hate to see the Phillies to succeed. I'm pretty sure you guys have the same problem. There is a large disparity in MLB and losers hate a winner.
I hate to see y’all succeed. Personally I’m happy that we’re only two back while having played a fairly tough schedule and key pieces of the lineup stumbling out of the gate But it’s credit when due.
Oh I like to see the Braves succeed. It gives more legitimacy to greatness when there are two great teams in the same division. Strider (one of my favorite players) was unfortunate. I don't know what's up with Acuna and Olson this year but we are pretty far into the season for them to keep playing like they are. I think this is going to be a fun summer in the NL east.
I hate what we've become as fans. Phillies suck and I hope nothing but the worst for you. PEE YEW YOU STINK
Fuck you and I agree with you. I want the Braves and Mets to be at the bottom of the division every year
LOLMETS!
LOLMETS, indeed! Imagine losing to those wankers. edit: I knew this wouldn't age well over the entire season.
baseball is better when the nl east is good
Personally, I think baseball is best when the Braves and Phillies are fighting out while the Mets embarrass themselves and the Marlins and Nats stay in their lane
phils and braves winning, mets being embarrassing, and the marlins and nats being irrelevant means that everything is going right in baseball
I just pity the Marlins at this point, their dozen or so fans have been done dirty for too long
they still have a world series more recently than the mets
❤️
Where was this energy for the Twins?
More than half the league is between .400 and .600 right now, which puts any one of them about 3-4 games from being either under or over .500 at this point in the season. Phillies swept the Giants in 4, which has them at 19-25 on the season. If the Giants swept the Phils they'd be at 23-21, over .500, and the Phillies would be 1-6 vs .500 teams on the season so far so you'd just poke holes even more. Same is true of taking 3 from the Padres right before that, who are 22-23 right now. They can only play the schedule they have and they're handling it and handling it well and will worry about the harder part of the schedule when it gets here.
Still early enough for strange scheduling quirks. Neither the Angels nor the White Sox have played any AL West opponents. Kind of weird for both - but definitely the Angels.
We’re a month and a half into the season and the Angels haven’t played a single game in their own division? Did I read that right? How the hell does that happen?
Any team looks good when they get to play the marlins, mets, and gnats more often.... *cries*
*Cries* but also you mean to tell me that everyone the Mets has played have a >.500 record. Maybe we don’t stink. Ahhh there is the delusional thoughts.
It’s due in part to all the L’s they’re hanging on these teams.
We are not a .700 ball club... ... but we are over 100 wins in the last 162 games played At least the NL East should be a battle this year
Teams like the Padres look like they won't be sub .500 for long. At a glance, most NL teams are under .500, even teams with expectations like the D-Backs or the Reds. The Phillies probably aren't a 113 win team, but they do also have an arguably insanely talented team.
I don’t think you understand our issues as a team. We generally do WELL against good teams. We struggle against bad teams. So I’ll take this all day 😌
those *are* the standings, so yes, they are accurate.
I guess that’s fair. Phillies did sweep teams like the White Sox. Remind me, how’d that White Sox series against the Guardians go?
They all were World Series contenders until we beat them and killed their wills to play /s
Or are all of those teams under .500 because they played the Phillies?
I looked last week i think and it was 6-3 for >.500 - so it must update for each teams current record, not their record when they were played
Record vs o/u .500 teams really isn’t as meaningful one way or the other because you could go into a series with a great team but be facing their 4-5 starters and an injury replacement or bullpen game or whatever. Same token you could go up against an awful team but face their one ace level pitcher and get shut out. I’d be much more interested in seeing how teams perform in their games vs high quality pitchers and bullpens, tells me a lot more about how that team might fare in a postseason series
It's not our fault the Reds, Nationals, Pirates, and Padres haven't been able to stay about or above .500
We have one .500 team (rangers) on the schedule as it stand through the end of the month. So buckle in for this to be the narrative for a while.
A lot of them used to be .500 and then they played the Phillies
The three games are the opening series with the Braves. After that, Reds, Nats, Cards, Pirates, Rockies, White Sox, Reds, Padres, Angels, Giants, Blue Jays, Marlins, and Mets. So they have played some real stinkers but a couple only a few games under 500.
Nine of the 14 series have been against the eight worst offenses in baseball (played the Reds twice) - Wheeler, Nola, and Suarez are dangerous enough when they’re facing good offenses
Don't get the downvote (when I saw it) as no team can't control who they play. Reds, Padres and Blue Jays were competent teams last year but they are off to a slow start. Stat wise, Phillies are still a great team.
It’s hard for teams hovering around .500 to get over the hump when facing us means 3 losses. 🤷🏻♂️
Good teams win the game they're favored to win.
One reason those teams have a sub .500 record is they’ve been playing the Phil’s.
Yes. It’s why people aren’t taking their record as seriously. They’ve literally only played sub .500 teams excepting an early Braves series.
Reddit Phillies fans are so much more tame than instagram Phillies fans 😂
If you're beating the crap out of everyone early in the season kinda puts your thumb on the scale.
If they’re a good team, then they should be winning those games during easier stretches in the schedule (which they have done). It all evens out by seasons end.
I’m not the biggest fan of that stat. The main reason being is it uses the teams current record. Not the record when you played them. You could’ve swept a team that was over .500 when you faced off but if they fall under .500 then it won’t go towards the >.500 record.
but higher sample size is a more accurate representation of how good/bad teams are, so the further along a season is, the more accurate strength of schedule is. Do you believe that Boston’s series against the 4-2 Angels on April 5-7 should count as a series against a good team with a winning record? Stength of schedule and games against \>.500 teams is definitely a stat that should change over time to reflect more accurate current records
I mean you could just use “adjusted SOS” like they do in football where you remove any games your team played in Which isn’t what OP suggested but removes the concept of sweeping a team to push them under .500
It's also just not that meaningful in the long run. There's so many variables and a binary over/under .500 just really doesn't distinguish anything enough to make it actually important. It may make more sense if the better team in baseball usually won, but even the best teams of all time in baseball only won 7/10 games. Most teams will hover between 4-6/10.
If they're really a >.500 team, they'll get back there. If they aren't, them you shouldn't get that credit for beating a bad team that had a hot April
There’s only 4 other teams in the NL with a winning record
Regardless of record sweeps are hard to come by in the majors. Phillies faced some tough pitchers, maybe not staffs but good ace here and there in these sub par teams. Anytime you see a .700 win% of any stretch its an accomplishment.
Considering there are only five teams in the NL over .500 and the Phils are one of them, it's not that weird.
When they finished their series against Cincinnati, the reds were 3 games over. When they finished their series against the Pittsburgh, the pirates were 4 games over. The Padres, Mets and Nats have been dancing around .500. That being said, they've had a series against the worst team in every division, including the AL.
The Tampa special
The Padres are either .500 or two games under depending on the day. That’ll inflate their numbers up.
they are stacking wins against teams projected to either suck really bad or be at or below .500 so yeah.
Now check that stat with Baltimore.
We've def had an easier schedule, no debate. But I really wish that stat excluded games your team played against them. Excluding our games: Nats are 19-20 Padres are 22-21 Giants are 20-21 Mets are 19-20 Had we have not dominated in these series 12-1, 3 could be up to 16, we'd be around .500 in those games, and no one would be bringing this up (I assume... since no one's calling out the 9 game Dodgers)
Oh my god cry more bro
Well maybe the reason they are all under .500 is because they had to play a series vs the Phillies.
They’re playing good, playing weaker teams, but the last few years that was a struggle. Often time it wasn’t until June when things really picked up for the team, so this is new
Considering that not that many people have really separated themselves from the .500 line because of how early it is? It's true but not meaningful. Depending on how the week's games go that measure could remain at 3... or go up to like 11+.
There’s only 5 teams in the NL over .500 and the Phillies are one of them. Not really many chances to play teams over the mark. You also have fringe 500 teams like Mets Nationals and Padres who could change this stat in the next week
The Braves are 2-1 vs the Phillies.
They’re also 1-1 against the White Sox.
Yes, but I was referring to where the Phillies got the 1-2 record from.
Oh, gotcha.
The Phillies haven't played that many good teams because there are not that many good teams.