That fact actually implies the opposite of what you think it does. How so? A player who has gotten better several years in a row is likely get worse in the immediate future, and vice-versa. But in determining who is more washed up, it presents a better argument for the player who isn't getting worse. I mean, really what you're saying is that the guy on a decline has a better chance of improving because he can't get worse. The player who is putting up better results will struggle to continue to improve. I don't want to focus on Bako necessarily because it probably wasn't the best example, but FWIW, taking his whole career, hitting wise, its pretty constant suckage. Yes, we have "the book" on Bako, but his book tells us he's acceptable as a backup catcher if you don't have better options. So last year we brought him in. His and Hill's spring training wasn't the biggest deciding factor, in fact probably one of the smallest, but it still plays a roll. Also its a really small sample, but in his limited at bats last year, Bako's OPS did go up again. Millar's book tells us he was acceptable at one time, and has been pretty steadily getting worse to the point where he doesn't have value. But not focusing on these two, a pretty common spring training scenario is you have two young guys coming from AAA who are fighting over the last bullpen spot. They each have at least comparable numbers. Close enough that an argument could be made for either. And since their young, developmentally there is still a lot going on with their skills, and despite a large number of minor league stats, spring training helps to determine if either has gained an edge. Plus spring training evaluations are not simply based on spring training statistics. Jaramillo can tell if a person is swinging the bat well or whether they are struggling. Like WF22 said, if two guys come into camp with similar backgrounds/skills and are fighting for the same position, why not give it to the guy the coaches feel is the better performer?