The Nats might just be doing it. After starting 9-1 and looking like maybe the best team in baseball the Nats have hunted elusively for that next streak. They pulled out 5-1... only to follow that up with a 3 game losing streak. Which they promptly followed with four wins in a row to make it a 9-4 stretch ... only to follow it up with a 1-5 stretch. 4-1 was followed by 0-3. 3-0 by 3-5. Nothing is given but given that six of the next nine games are at Cincinnati, who after a 5-1 start have gone 13-34 and might just be the worst team in baseball (take that Twins and Braves!), and against these same Phillies in DC, it seems that now is the time.
It seems quite possible that the Nats are going to either put up a streak such that a possible small stumble like 0-4 or 1-5 won't take the shine off it. Something like 11-2. Or they'll go like 9-4 but with games at SD and MIL and home vs CIN and MIL through July 4th weekend, they'll be able to follow it up with a .500 set as opposed to one something like 4-9 to bring them right back to where they started.
This is good.
So apparently Danny vs Trea is a hot button topic for you people. I think I've been clear. I would bring up Trea, because I'm all in for 2016 and I think there is a better chance Trea would produce more than Danny than not. BUT I can see the Nats side because (1) they are winning, (2) there is a moderate chance Trea wouldn't be better, and (3) the Nats get something for keeping Trea down, be it $ or service time.
Number 2 there seems to be a sticking point because projections suggest that Trea is clearly better. Well let's talk about that for a second.
Projections are made in a way to decrease error across all players. They attempt to answer the question of how can we create a single system that gets the closest to projecting everyone's stats for the next season. That's a HUGE question and understandably projection systems are far from perfect. Even though they are generally good there is still a lot of error in there and often the difference between the best system and the simplest is actually pretty small. For a GM trying to put together a team over several years that may matter, as little things add up. For us picking apart a single player it really doesn't. The error bars. My god, man, the error bars!
But that's not to say projections aren't useful on a micro level. At this level they are less about being more accurate in their models than they are about being more accurate by removing bias. When you or I evaluate someone we bring our own experiences and prejudices to the table that can color an evaluation.We may like a certain type of player, or have feelings for his school, or the player he could replace. He may have played poorly or great when we've seen him. A projection system cuts all that out and gives us a straight answer influenced by nothing*. That's great! And it's not great! It's not great because our personal experiences and feelings have the potential to make projections better. That's right. Better. Because we don't know if we are making it better or not using a system makes a lot more sense. But it doesn't invalidate the potential of what we see and think as individuals.
Why do I possibly like my Trea projection better than Steamer or ZiPS? Because I'm not looking at a system created for 1000 players and trying to decrease error, I'm looking at one player. Why do I possibly like my projection of Trea better then Keith Law or John Sickels or whoever?** Because he's not 1 of 2000 players I'm putting in time trying to evaluate and grade, but just the one I'm looking at now. I could totally be wrong. I could totally be biased. I understand that. And you yourself should completely go with systems or experts over me, I would probably do that to you. But I'm here to give my opinions and this is my opinion.
We're guessing how a player will do. No one is wrong here. It wouldn't even be wrong if it were Trea Turner vs Stephen Drew or Lombardozzi or Jamey Carroll. "What do you think?" is the question. The answer is what you think.
While we're on the subject another thing about projections is that you really shouldn't use projections for one and then not use projections for the other. If you are going to compare Danny to Trea you have to do it using the same system. What does that actually play out to be? Well using what's available on Fangraphs and figuring 100 games for the starter...
Steamer : ~1.1 WAR for Danny, ~1.6 for Trea
ZiPS : ~1.3 for Danny, ~1.6 for Trea
(Depth Charts is just a combination of these two with Fangraphs playing time projections so it doesn't bring in anything new here)
These are rough because there are updates and RoS projection and non-updates for minor leaguers, etc. but both are pretty clear in how they project the rest of the season. Trea would likely be worth a half-win more than Danny. Now granted if we had access to the error information and distributions you'd see the chances Danny outperforms Trea in these projections is probably pretty high - 33%, 40% I bet - but still this is the very general idea they present. Trea would be better. A little better.
But I'm not arguing that. I agree with it.
As a simple baseball offensive production question this isn't really complicated. Factor in defense and it gets a bit cloudy. Factor in intangibles and competing goals and then it really becomes an opinion piece and each of us have a different opinion but in the end only Rizzo's opinion matters.
*well outside any prejudices the people building the system might put in there. While real though they aren't going to be made for any specific player.
** let's note that what we're really talking about here with me "going against" these systems is me literally saying something like "I think for 100 games in 2016 he'll be more like 85-90% of what they predict he'll be" This isn't Atheism vs Christianity here, it's Lutheran Church of America vs Lutheran Church of Missouri Synod