Again 84 wins is the starting point. First, the playing time upward adjustment. Let's be a bit more generous with playing time. We can probably bump Ramos up to 130 and get something like 2.5 more wins between him and a productive Lobaton. We want to add more time for Werth as well, but have to factor in his expected decline (really last year was out of line with his history and he's old). In the nightmare we gave him a total decline, this time we'll call it a wash for now and come back if we need some more wins. We're at 86.5 wins right now. (I know, I know. We'll get to Bryce in a minute)
Fister and Blevins will help too, as noted last time. I'm not going to do anything with Blevins individually. Fister himself has twice given more than the Nats got from 4th & 5th combined last year. Let's say he matches that and the Nats find a decent 5th early in the year. 2.5 wins generously instead of 1.5, let's say right around 89 wins.
Now we need to see some actual improvement. There's Bryce of course. He'll play more games, which would get a win more without improvement, let's toss in another win there. That's not a big jump, still wouldn't even put him in the Top 10 offensive players (but close) 91 wins. Rendon will also play more, which in itself should give the Nats a win more, if you don't assume a slump. You could probably add another win there too without being seen as crazy. 93 wins.
Fister and Blevins will help too, as noted last time. I'm not going to do anything with Blevins individually. Fister himself has twice given more than the Nats got from 4th & 5th combined last year. Let's say he matches that and the Nats find a decent 5th early in the year. 2.5 wins generously instead of 1.5, let's say right around 89 wins.
Now we need to see some actual improvement. There's Bryce of course. He'll play more games, which would get a win more without improvement, let's toss in another win there. That's not a big jump, still wouldn't even put him in the Top 10 offensive players (but close) 91 wins. Rendon will also play more, which in itself should give the Nats a win more, if you don't assume a slump. You could probably add another win there too without being seen as crazy. 93 wins.
There is LaRoche of course. Bouncing back to 2012 levels is probably asking too much, but something like 2007-2009? Maybe on the low side, like a 1.5 WAR? That's still a win better than last year. 94 wins.
It's hard to see Desmond doing any better and Zimmerman isn't the best candidate for a bump. We'll hold off here. Overall Span was basically matching his past year's levels. Maybe his hitting gets better, but his D probably slips a bit. Not getting anywhere now. Oh the bench! It was actually a net negative last year. Add up the non-pitcher and non-catchers (we already figured in Lobaton) and it's like a -3.5. Yikes. I can't say Moore or Espinosa are going to play much better but given the health expectations we're assuming, they'll play less. That's a big factor in the improvement here. Add in an average McLouth... let's just say the Nats are neutral. That's 3.5 wins better. 97.5 wins. I can see 100 from here!
I think we all know Strasburg could get a lot better. He was better in 2011 than 2012. Just getting back to 2011 levels - that's another win. 98.5. The bullpen was pretty average and another win there, completely possible through variability alone, wouldn't be unusual. I don't think that's asking for much especially with Blevins on the team and Storen with his head possibly screwed on straight. 99.5 wins.
We're pretty much here right? A half-win is nothing. Anything can do that, an improvement by Ramos along with more games played, Zimmerman having a good year, Bryce or Strasburg making a jump rather than just improving, Gio pitching more like 2012 or ZNN pitching a full year like the first half of 2013. Hell lucky bounces in close games or better luck in clutch hitting can do it. There's a ton of options.
And it's important that there are a ton of options because as you notice there are no disappointments in the above. Maybe I didn't put the happiest face on everything but everyone was healthy and did no worse than last year. Everyone that did bad either improved or played fewer games. That is the easy way to get to the 100 win season, but it also doesn't give you a lot of leeway in staying there. One bad injury and an off year derails that model pretty quickly. Having a cushion, where if everything goes right you are sitting at 105 is a better bet for such a high win total. The Nats aren't quite there but they are in spitting distance.
Honestly thought, the thing I like most is the bench improvement, as modest as it may be. Remember 2012 wasn't a healthy year. It was a year that the bench performed crazy well. Last year it performed crazy bad. While I don't expect "crazy good" the Nats have decent back-ups in the two spots they need it the most based on past injury history, catcher and OF.
Honestly thought, the thing I like most is the bench improvement, as modest as it may be. Remember 2012 wasn't a healthy year. It was a year that the bench performed crazy well. Last year it performed crazy bad. While I don't expect "crazy good" the Nats have decent back-ups in the two spots they need it the most based on past injury history, catcher and OF.
Given the two scenarios, I not only like the 100 win one more, I think it's more realistic. I didn't feel like I forced anything to get to 99.5, whereas for .500 I got stuck a good win and a half out. In my head that makes them a bit better than the average of the two scenarios. A bit better than 91 wins... 92, 93. Yeah that sounds about right.... right now (stay healthy Fister!)
21 comments:
I will say that aside from injuries, the bullpen is where I'm most nervous. You add a run here, but I could easily see it going the other way. Soriano looks like he's on the decline with last year being one of his worst seasons. This year could be even worse. You've also speculated in the past that Clippard's success may not be sustainable. He could have an off year or injury given his work load. And if Storen is anything like he was at the start of 2013 rather than the end, that takes a big chunk our of the pen. Sure, Blevins will be an improvement, and maybe having Garcia over Mattheus would help, but I'm still nervous. A Soriano meltdown could be ugly.
In the end though, I agree that 91-93 wins sounds reasonable. If we get to 100, I predict it's going to be due to huge breakout years by Ramos and Harper.
I agree on the pen. Nats have gotten a lot from this core and can't do that forever. I also really don't like LaRoche to bounce back that much, and I'm very wary on expecting too much from Werth.
On the flipside I can easily see that being covered by Bryce, Ramos, Rendon, and Strasburg all getting better. At least one should really jump this year. Probably more like 2 or 3.
What about added flexibility in the manager's construction of the lineup?
Last year, Davey was pretty wedded to the thought that Span and ALR (and at times others slumping) would perform like they had in 2012. It seemed that those struggles often unnecessarily started innings with an out or ended innings that should have seen Desmond or Ramos at the plate instead of ALR.
Do you think Williams' fresh start adds wins, or is it too hard to tell what we may lose from Davey's experience?
@Anon - While lineup construction historically has a negligible impact on runs (and therefore wins), you do have a point in Davey sticking with slumping hitters way too much (for proof, read this boards posts while espi was struggling). So I think the long-term playing times for slumping hitters will improve things, but that should be included in Harper's analysis "everyone who was bad is playing less"
I posted my two cents (late) on the last entry, but I think people are still selling LaRoche short. Last year was a career-worst year (save for sophomore slump way back when). Maybe SOME of it can be attributed to age-regression, but its STEEP if that's the case. I'm ready to give him back some of the bad peripherals (K%, BB%, HR/FB) to get him back to his normal levels, with a bit slighter SLG drop-off. Somewhere in the .250/.340/.450 range, .400 SLG is an abomination
I know this is getting way out there, and can't be included in the scenario because it's pure speculation. But...
What if the Nats make a mid-season move at first base (whether it's covering for an injured ALR, upgrading/replacing, platooning, etc...) I mean, the guy has a $15 mil option in 2015. I just don't see the Nats exercising that option unless ALR has huge year. But the Nats don't exactly have that position locked up in the future (maybe Skole?, definitely not Moore). It's not a leap to think that someone not currently on our roster could be playing at first in some capacity by the end of the season.
And yes, I know Zimmerman is being groomed for a move to first. But there is a gap there that will have to be addressed. If Zim spends another year at 3B then 1B will need an occupant. IF Zim moves in 2015, then we'll need to cover 3B or 2B in the event of a Rendon move back to 3B.
Anon / BJD1207 - I don't know about the lineup. I'm tempted to say "don't worry about it" for the reasons you state BJD. Also, I have no inclination that MW will be quicker to pull struggling players (or that the replacements are good enough that he should). I mean maybe a half-win not really anything to get excited about in comparison to everything else that's going on.
BJD1207 - So basically Kendrys Morales 2013, about a half-win better than last year. It's not that I think that LaRoche CAN'T bounce back, but he's in that age range (34 right now, 35 right after season's end) where declines happen and you don't bounce back.
For example there were 13 players age 33 who had 300 or more at bats in 2012 (I know, just 13.) 3 had better years in 2013, 3 were stable (but 2 of those stable were terrible in 2012), and 6 had worse years. He may have been hurt by injury, but those heal slower as you age, too. Time isn't on his side.
Lee - if LaRoche just is done I can see that. Otherwise... I'm not sure. I have the least faith in Rizzo when it comes to mid-season replacements. I could see McClouth or Hairston playing more first before I see a deal.
I'm really like the pitching depth now that Fister's already had an ouchie.
I could see getting a bit more defensive and baserunning club value with Williams being more aggressive with shifts and putting players in motion. I expect Desmond to run a lot more, for instance.
@Harp - Morales is probably an ideal comparison for a number of reasons. Drop the avg. just a bit because LaRoche isn't hitting lefties the other way and you probably land right at my expectations. He also fits the age regression (though LaRoche a few years past) so yea I'd be ready to give him the Morales profile with a bit better discipline.
You're the first one I've seen describe it as "not rebounding fully" due to age and presenting it that way makes much more sense to me. I don't expect a 2012 LaRoche year, but I also don't expect a 2013 LaRoche either. That was out of character in my estimations, not the beginning of a trend line
These projections are entirely internal to the Nats. Do we project anything based on strength of schedule? Fangraphs says the Nats have the most favorable SoS of any team. And if a couple of the Braves pitchers have elbow issues . . .
I think LaRoche's rebound will be hampered by pitchers realizing 2014 LaRoche isn't someone to be feared. Last season, despite his struggles he walked at the 15th most frequent rate in baseball and the 6th most frequent in the NL. Meanwhile, of the top 25 players in that category in baseball, only Dan Uggla and Russell Martin have lower runs created per 27 outs.
If pitchers erase the lag time created by his superior 2012 season, LaRoche is going to have to hit more to even get to last year's .332 OBP.
I think LaRoche's rebound will be hampered by pitchers realizing 2014 LaRoche isn't someone to be feared. Last season, despite his struggles he walked at the 15th most frequent rate in baseball and the 6th most frequent in the NL. Meanwhile, of the top 25 players in that category in baseball, only Dan Uggla and Russell Martin have lower runs created per 27 outs.
If pitchers erase the lag time created by his superior 2012 season, LaRoche is going to have to hit more to even get to last year's .332 OBP.
You are writing off Zim way too easily. Just the previous year he was a full win better even with worse offensive production. If his arm is at all better, he is a minimum 4 WAR in 145 games, an improvement of a win.
I think LaRoche has a pretty good idea of the strike zone and he works pretty deep counts. It's not about fear of his power, there's actually a skill involved to an extent. Plenty of guys who should walk a lot, like Josh Hamilton for instance, don't because they have no discipline about it. Then you get guys like Joey Votto, who are actively criticized for being excellent at it.
Another dream scenario would be the Reds falling out of contention, their fans clamoring for a change, Votto having more walks than RBI and some reporters getting on his case, and Rizzo pulling off a nice trade for him to solve 1B.
blovy8 - I expect more aggression too. I'm fascinated by what that could mean for one player. Bryce's mad dash, anyone?
BJD1207 - I'm not high on LaRoche, but I do expect a better year. Right now I'm thinking in the 1.0 WAR range. Very disappointing but enough that the Nats probably don't make a move.
CX - Yes entirely internal. These are "could happen" situations not what I think "will happen" so I didn't look beyond the team. Didn't seem to be a point - I was going to get to 100 wins somehow.
Anon #1 - I'm interested to see LaRoche's walk rate this year. It did go up as you note, but it seems to vary with BA. In other words, he walks more to make up for when he can't hit. So I can see him with a .340 OBP and a .240 BA or a .340 OBP and a .270 BA. I don't THINK it's a skill as much as a method of compensation.
Anon #2 - Nothing like arguing someone was undersold on a thought exercise to get the team to 100 wins. That aside, sure he could be worth another win if the D is ok. His offense is fairly steady. I like his D to be better but still a hinderance so if I were really trying to project the team in 2013 he might be worth half a win more, something like that. Haven't seriously looked at it.
blovy8 - I think that about LaRoche too but I think when it gets down to it, if he's hitting well he'll actively avoid taking a walk and swing at ball to try to get a big hit. That's why you never see him with a .265 .360 line.
Votto would be great, but I can't see the Reds packing it in just yet. In my head a more likely scenario would be say Anthony Rizzo puts up a .250 / .330 line with 20-25 HR and the Nats dangle a couple good pitching prospects (Cole and Solis?) in front of the Cubs.
Harper: Would love to see a post on how you think the Braves starting pitching turbulence over past week has shaken up the race (or not)? In my view, Ervin Santana essentially is super volatile and could easily be better than Medlen (comparably steady expectations), but could easily be worse. Beachy I have no clue if he's seriously hurt or just elbow soreness...but with his history it can't be good...Minor's shoulder seems nothing to worry about... BUT Isn't it the case that Bravos fate seems like it could hinge on those two additional injuries? Seems unlikely Nats could lose out to a team with a Freddy Garcia and a gimpy Gavin Floyd as regular starters; yet at the same time it's not outside realm of possibility that a Santana, Minor, Teheran Front 3 outperforms Stras, Gio, JZimm over course of season.
Harper, I think Rizzo would have to crater Espinosa-style to make his deal not worth it and why would we want that guy then?
BxJayCobb - have to see how it shakes out first. Minor for Santana... that's not going to throw things off that much, but lose Beachy too you start getting into that depth. But from what I hear - Beachy is going to be ok. We'll get back to this (and the other NL teams) closer to OD
blovy8 - I'd like to disagree but that is a pretty sweet contract they have for him, even if he's just around average. Smoak then? Trying to find someone that fits rizzo's "young, cheap, coming up on FA" trade mantra.
Is Smoak better than LaRoche? He's just cheaper really. This is why the Nats are where they are with that spot. May as well hope Skole gets the time to develop at AA. I'd hope his floor would be Smoak's level.
Probably for another topic, but I'm really impressed with Aaron Barrett this spring, though I haven't heard anyone talk about him being a candidate to make the pen. Any thoughts on who you think should be in the pen, vs. who you think will actually make it?
Post a Comment