I don't like seriousness too much, so something more frivolous to sit on top of the blog on the weekend:
In 2008 the Nats were shutout more times than any squad had been since 1978. That's pretty good. Since the strike it was 2 more than the '95 Cardinals and 4 more than anyone else. That may not seem like a lot but going from 17 to 21 is a 23% increase. So the Nats were pretty hideous.
If they keep their current pace they'll be shutout 26 times.
(they don't lead the league - the Padres do, but the Padres play in a stadium whose dimensions are 380-INF-532)
Of course they won't get shut out 26 times, Zimmerman will come back, Werth will start hitting....ummm ummm... well that should be enough to score a run most nights, but it's something fun to keep track of. Well, at least fun for me.
Since 2005 the Nats have been shutout 80 times
In 2005 the Nats lost 81 games and were shutout 11 times. That's not even that impressive though. Last year the Giants lost 70 games and 16 of them were shutouts.
The "best" year for the Nats shutout wise? 2009. Unsurprisingly their best offensive year in general.
...I think they may have read this post and taken it personally. ^^;;;
ReplyDelete(Though I kept thinking, "Why can't we bank a few of these runs for when we're going to so desperately need them in the future," it was rather nice to actually have one night when we were on the right end of a blowout.)
Further thought: Please, somebody tell me why Stairs was DH-ing rather than Morse. Is Riggleman so 100% committed to only using Morse against lefties now?
Yet further thought: It depresses me that thus far this year the only thing Desmond can do better than Hairston is "have upside." Okay, and steal bases. But still, if he doesn't get the bat somewhat back sooner or later, he's done, because you can't have a career as a bad-hitting middle infielder when you can't field, either. The part that depresses me most is that this isn't a case of Hairston having some small-sample-size success in the early season like last year's Pudge.