That was pretty impressive. But the end result is a fun night... and no games gained as both the Braves and Phillies won last night.
What really happened yesterday was the trade deadline passed and the Nats didn't add anyone to help out the lack of rotation depth, or cover the likely catcher issue, or cover for the currently injured closer. In fact they traded away Brandon Kintzler. Why? Well, on a baseball level I'm not sure. If there was one thing the Nats had a surplus in, it was maybe second tier relievers, but Kintzler was better than than so that's not exactly right. There were better guys to get rid of if you wanted to make space for say Glover.I suppose if you are SURE the rotation is back on track and SURE that Doolittle will...
Hey Kelley was just DFA'd!
Kelley isn't great but the reason the Nats had been keeping him around was because he was actually doing well (1.69 ERA over June and July). One bad game shouldn't have been enough to send him away for nothing. But apparently the manager didn't like his outburst and they are cleaning house of anyone that isn't 100% on board for this team.
I feel like the Nats are determined to make us think that this is an attitude problem as opposed to an injury issue rolling into a "that's just baseball" thing rolling into "uh oh - no more time!" Whatever. I mean if it takes blaming guy after guy until you maybe find a winning streak by luck I guess that's what we're going to do. But really we should be blaming the GM and the manager and the players not coming through. Don't forget that.
Ok I'm on vacation and Kelley derailed my thought train so we're stopping here. Nats just need to keep winning. 5-1 goal. 1-0 down
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
If we believe the media and not the Nats' spin, there is some sort of clubhouse issue. Clear out a few fringe players who are malcontents. I see no problem. Getting on top of a potential problem in the clubhouse is probably even more important than selling off some assets at the deadline. Find out who you want to roll with for next year one way or another.
I don't know why the Nationals aren't in first place. Undefeated even. My gosh, they're averaging eight plus runs a game in their last three games. Hey, stats don't lie!
Love that Kelley was DFA'd. I swear that guy does the job that Mark Reynolds could do on the mound.
A little curious if it had anything to do with last night and him throwing his glove like a 7 year old in 25-4 game. Maybe he was mad at the ump? Maybe he wanted DM to have his back when the ump told him to speed it up? Maybe he thought he shouldn't be pitching in that game? We I'm glad Rizzo responded with "Yeah, you shouldn't be pitching in ANY game. GTFO." :)
Nats hitting:
Fanbase, I don't know why I go to extremes
Too high or too low, there ain't no in between
And if we sell or we hold
Its 25 or zero, I'm told
Fanbase, I don't know why I go to extremes
I have to think it was because of the outburst, which is insane to me. Jonathan Papelbon physically accosted our best player and even he wasn't immediately DFA'd. Otherwise, they could have sold Kelley 3 hours earlier and actually gotten something for him.
Chelsea Janes of the Post has some quotes on twitter. Seems like Kelley was expecting to mop up once Suero threw a lot of pitches in the eighth. He was trying to get things over with and the umps were dicking him around with one telling him he wasn't coming to a set long enough and the home plate ump telling him to work faster. Then the batter steps out, and you could see him say "come on!". In that context, the look into the dugout might have been more of, are you going to come out and see what the hell these two umpires will agree to let me do so we can get this over with? But I guess Rizzo wants complete robots on his team, so that's what they play like. well, apart from Zim pretending to storm the mound after getting hit by Reyes, that was kind of funny.
I still can't believe a guy like Reynolds didn't get that ninth inning, PBN.
At that point, I think everyone just wanted the game to end. Putting in Reynolds would likely have prolonged things. Kelley was the right choice. He just should have shrugged off the homerun like a pro rather than pout like a child. Team needs a few examples and he set himself up as an easy one.
@sammy
Overall, they should be a little over a .500 record with +59 runs, even if you discount the fact that about 30 of those +runs came in two games where they had a wild rumpus at the expense of a bottom feeder.
If you're so allergic to numbers, why do you read a soulless automaton's blog?
Also tonight the announced starters are Syndergaard and Milone. The only way this isn't the 0-1 part of the 5-1 run is if Thor's hands or feet are still not fully healthy.
@Kubla: Tonight = right now. It's a noon game.
While I believe in the numbers and typically eschew gamery, grittyness and clubhouse chemistry, I have worked jobs before that were just toxic environments. I know I didn't do my best work there, seems at least plausible that while the chemistry is often overrated, it can and does have an effect. Just because we can't measure that effect, doesn't mean we should completely discount it.
There's also something that almost never gets discussed in the media. A lot of these guys party...a lot. Sometimes, it helps a team to get rid of the ring leaders of the party scene. Not saying that was Kintzler or Kelley, but having been around teams I've always wondered why this doesn't get reported at all, except in the case of the Josh Beckett Red Sox.
Harper, you seemed to imply Kintzler was traded because of some personality/clubhouse issues, along with Kelley. Clearly, there has to be more to the Kelley story than getting DFA'd for one inappropriate outburst that doesn't seem like it was directed at DM.
Thanks for the reminder, Robot. I'd forgotten that it was a noon start. And since I don't get radio or TV here, gotta check the Nat's page for an update on the score.
As an aside, were there more ground ball hits last night than usual? If not grounders, were there more "over the infield and in front of the outfield" type of thing? That'd suggest that the players are hitting the way they did before the Long Era. (Except for Murphy's two dingers, of course, and his long out to right.)
@kubla, For years some people have said I have been too critical of the Nationals' frequent inability to score runs, and they've made their argument by pointing out the runs-per-game average. It's a perfect opportunity to point out the fallacy of that argument. We've had many occasions through the years of outscoring opponents in three and four game series or even longer stretches with the results being one blowout win and the rest one or two-run losses. That's all.
Rizzo on Kelley: "You're either in or you're in the way, and I thought he was in the way." Well, yesterday I was angry that Rizzo was mouthing PR pap to the microphone and apparently he decided to show me that I don't know what I want. @_@ Just...wow.
Meanwhile, we've apparently moved into the Bizarro World, where Tommy Milone straight-up outpitches Noah Syndergaard, Jose Reyes is a power-hitting monster, and despite the best efforts of the bullpen we've managed to get back over .500. (Also, with Murphy hitting again and Zimmerman on the bench, that lineup can be scarily good outside of the painful suffering that is the catcher position.)
Sammy, pointing out that there is variance in a team's runs scored per game does not support your argument. Of course there is variance. No team in the history of baseball scores exactly the same number of runs per game. For your argument to be correct, you would need to show that the Nats are somehow abnormal in this regard. How does the Nats' run scoring variance compare to league average? Other NL East teams? Other playoff teams?
My hypothesis: the Nats are perfectly ordinary in this regard. It only stands out to you because you pay close attention to the Nats and not as close attention to other teams. If presented with reliable evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to reject my hypothesis. But until then, your argument is the one that's fallacious.
Rizzo: "You're either in or you're in the way, and I thought he was in the way."
Martinez: "These guys know they need to start winning...now."
Bryce: "We're 5.5 games back and so far we've played our worst baseball, we need to put together some wins."
I'm with Dezo, I like the sudden turn to a telling-it-like-it-is Nats, not the vanilla-positive-speak that we have been getting. All the sudden, I believe in this team again...
^^ Wait but this stuff doesn't mean anything, remember? ;)
I had a little down time at work, so I looked into this run variance issue. I took game logs from all 15 NL teams.
Before I give my findings, some assumptions:
Mean Runs Scored should be greater than Median Runs Scored (true for 11/15 teams. PIT, ARI, MIL, LAD are exceptions). There's a lower bound on how many runs you can score, but the upper bound is only theoretical (see WAS-NYM last night).
Since the upper bound is technically infinity, we'd expect a strong positive correlation between runs scored and the standard deviation of runs scored. (corr = 0.66)
Nats ranked 6th in the NL in runs scored at the end of yesterday, and 1st in standard deviation of runs scored.
They have an middling to good offense by runs scored, but the most inconsistent offense in the NL.
Conclusion: Sammy Kent is right.
You can look up runs scored leaders on your own, but the top 5 are:
Cubs
Braves
Rockies
Dodgers
Reds
Here are your inconsistency leaders:
Team sdRuns
Nats 4.181474138
Cubs 3.833425133
Braves 3.357120441
Dodgers 3.319858538
Phils 3.315268749
Brewers 3.297027751
DBacks 3.264893733
Rockies 3.168635601
Pirates 3.163631928
Cards 3.145027956
Mets 2.950661626
Reds 2.86192574
Giants 2.816569101
Marlins 2.739202073
Padres 2.671397319
Always amazes me what stupid shit someone making millions of dollars will do.
Question: are the Nats on the hook for the remainder of his salary, or is there a Little League Behavior clause that voids it?
Thats not why. This may change as it becomes more normal for position players to pitch....but as of now putting in a position player when you are WINNING by a ton is considered bad sportsmanship and showing up the other team.
Putting in Reynolds would have led to a Mets pitcher throwing at Harper today. That’s considered showing up the other team. Which is dumb but whatever.
+59 runs should have you about 8 games over .500. Their record in 1 run games has them way underperforming their Pythagorean record.
Supposedly the modern baseball player actually doesn’t party that much at all. I think the further back you go (especially the 80sand early 90s there was way more partying), I think mostly it’s pretty chill during the season.
The shorter the sample (one series, two series, even a road trip or homestand) obviously the more irrelevant the run differential is. But the point is it evens out over larger samples like a season. It’s super rare to have a huge run differential and be near .500. Even a season isn’t ideal. But i bet if you look at the full Nats record and differential since 2005 it’s almost precisely what it should be. But you need to look at run difernital the right way. It’s not MEANT to show exactly what the record IS. It’s mesnt as an underlying reflection of talent. Because really good teams blow out people a lot. Mediocre teams rarely do. Bad teams get blown out a lot. And the expectation is the 1 run games are relatively close to .500 over course of year.
But it’s main use is to identify pretenders and contenders half way through a season. If you looked at say the Astros As and Mariners in June, the Astros were well ahead of mariners who were well ahead of everybody else for 2nd WC. Except the Astros had the greatest run differential in recent memory the mariners had a NEGATIVE run differential and the As had an excellent one. It suggested the As were likely to make a run at some point as their luck evened out, that the Mariners were a good bet to regress, and that the Astros were a good bet to win the division easily. Which is what’s likely to happen now.
I’m sorry but Matt Adams needs to play over Zim. I get that r makes the lineup very LH heavy, but at least against RHP they HAVE GOT to realize how much better Adams is.
It’s most fallacious because he’s focusing on one series and small samples and thinks that somehow shows run differential doesn’t work. That is precisely what you should NOT be doing. It is useful over large samples to predict whether a team is underperforming or over performing in W-L it’s underlying talent level due to unlucky run distribution.
That approach is not sound. Of course the inconsistency leaders are going to be the best teams that score the most runs. Because the Padres and marlins aren’t capable of blowing anybody out, they score like between 0-5 runs every single game. Being high in inconsistency is precisely shows that a team had a high talent level and should win a lot of games (at least assuming their run prevention is decent).
The “inconsistency leaders” (read: teams that have offensive thump) is the Nats and a bunch of playoff teams. This study does the opposite of what Sammy Kent was intending to do and supports the exact purpose of run differential, it shows that the Nats have the underlying talent (at least offensively) to belong with those top tier teams. They just need to pitch decently of courses
BxJ, I showed that there is a correlation between offensive output and variance, and said that I assumed there would be. The Nats variance is high relative to their offensive output. The Nats have scored 6+ runs (chosen arbitrarily as a "big game") 29 times (max: Cubs 41, min: Padres 20), good for 10th most in the NL. Cut differently to account for differing numbers of games played, the Nats have scored 6+ in 27% of their games, while the NL average is 30%.
The Nats have exploded for 10+ runs 10 times this season. (Cubs 15, Marlins 4, mean 7.8).
The Nats have been shut out 11 times, (non-Nats max: Pirates/Brewers 10, min DBacks 4). They've also scored 2 or fewer runs at a higher than average rate.
I'm not arguing that they are inherently more random than other teams or that they'll be more inconsistent moving forward--a full season might not a big enough sample to argue that with statistical significance--but I am absolutely arguing that if you look at the 107 games the Nats had played before August started, they have been by any measure one of the more inconsistent teams in the NL, and arguably the most inconsistent.
I'm also not arguing that the Nats shouldn't have won more games or that pythag/run differential are meaningless. But if we're describing the past, they have had a tendency to score in extreme ranges.
More importantly, they have been as inconsistent as you would expect from an elite offense without being the juggernaut that we would have hoped for going in to the season (you're right that juggernauts will have a wider range of likely outcomes). Sammy's frustration is not simply confirmation bias due to following and being invested in only one team (although there is most likely some of that). The Nats actually have had relatively high highs and relatively low lows, relative to other NL teams, and that's true even if you limit the sample to potential playoff teams.
It's not a huge difference, like "Oh you're a dummy if you didn't have the same impression as Sammy," and probably Sammy's frustration is out of proportion to the facts, but the facts do support his claim that the Nats have put together a respectable runs/game ratio by scoring a lot of runs sometimes (especially a tremendous number of runs on occasion) and scoring very few runs often.
Josh, this is very interesting even though it's not definitive (as you recognize). Two points: (1) I think Sammy's impressions are driven largely by confirmation bias. He's been beating this drum for years, and what you found this year would have to be true for the past few years as well. I'm certainly not suggesting you do that work to find out, but his claim is "this what the Nats offense has been like" not "there's something different about this year"; (2) I wonder how much work the recent 25 run game is doing in the numbers. How would the Nats' standard deviation rank look if you removed the outlier?
I absolutely agree that this is one of Sammy's favorite talking points. Usually I disagree with him, and expected that digging into the scores would suggest that he was mistaken, but that's not what I found. I'm pretty unbusy today again, so I might look into at least one past year.
Since you asked, the SD without the 25 run game drops to 3.68, which would still be second highest. The Nats second highest scoring game (18 runs on 7/7 v Miami) is the 6th highest scoring game of the season, and they also have the 12th highest scoring game in the NL this year (15 runs 4/25 @ SFG).
If you run the whole NL with each team's highest scoring game dropped from the data, the Nats and Cubs switch places (Cubs sd = 3.85, Nats sd = 3.68), and the next 5 teams are ATL, PHI, LAD, MIL, ARI, and they're all packed within the range 3.296-3.317. No team other than the Nats has a change greater than .04 when you exclude the highest scoring game. So the 25-run game definitely makes things look weird.
But at the same time, since I'm not trying to predict the future, just describe the past, removing each team's max scoring game isn't really appropriate. Those high scoring games did happen, after all.
I think Sammy's impression is backed by the "eye test." The Nats offense hasn't looked consistent for years, and I agree. How many times does someone say "that player sucks" and it turns out the fancy stats say otherwise? Hardly ever. Of course the eye-test isn't a the furthest point of evaluation, but I think most of us on here are smart enough to recognize a problem before diving into the numbers. Intelligent fanbase = stronger community. I love the confirmation on this, thanks for the work Josh.
I really think the problem with our offense is flow, or station-to-station capability. Our hitters don't operate that way. The reason? Could be anything from the type of players we have, what our coaches preach, or the stubborn ways of million dollar athletes. The "why" is pure speculation, but I do believe that each player operates on his own accord to do what HE THINKS is beneficial for the team, rather than what actually is. The days where our offense explodes is an example of the talent that we have. It shows what we're capable of. But its smoke and mirrors because of the way it gets done (i.e. poor pitching/missing spots, luck, etc.) It is not due to a sound approach because you would see routs like that more often. Our guys try to replicate that 20 run explosion each night and most of the time it doesn't work out. This is where "that's just baseball" misses the point entirely. More like "that's just Nats baseball." Each game, each AB, each pitch, depending on the situation, count, runners on, hitter behind you, score, etc. all should dictate how you approach it. When I hear hitters say "just looking for a good pitch to hit and try to drive it somewhere" drives me crazy. Except for a sac bunt, are they ever NOT thinking that?
Did the Nats call up Cordero instead of Glover because Glover needs more time in AAA to build up arm strength?
Nicely summarized by the PBN. I think the routs also show the difference in hitting when the players are loose, in low leverage situations, and often against the worst pitchers on the opposing team.
Ole PBN: anecdotal silo thinking. The Nats are around MLB average in % of “productive outs per opportunity” and also % of singles vs XBH. Their AVG in RISP is close their overall AVG. This is an MLB wide trend, folks. End of story. Literally every team’s fans are convinced their team is uniquely unable to hit with RISP and advance teammates. They’re not. It’s just that MLB players in 2018 due to a mix of defensive positioning, pitching being as unhittable as ever, reliever usage, and analytics are more inclined to try to get XBHs. The reality that fans and commmentators ignore: making contact has never been more difficult. Average velocity has gone up continually for the last 15 years. With people throwing 95+ with 89 mph sliders and nobody getting to face a starter more than two times, K% is going to go up whether or not players are taking a “selfish” approach. So on the rare times when you make contact with such filthy stuff, you want it to go far.
Curse your sound logic, Bx:
https://www.pinstripealley.com/2018/7/7/17543194/yankees-offense-runners-in-scoring-position-worst-in-baseball-since-june-1st
https://cubbiescrib.com/2018/04/15/chicago-cubs-producing-runners-scoring-position-challenge/
You speak the truth. But our eyes do not lie to us either. Per the recent interview with Daniel Murphy referenced in these comment pages a while back, hitters do indeed reference analytics to seek out XBHs, and with good reason... unless the effort is situationally unaware.
Bx, not sure where you're getting your numbers, but according to this the Nats are #1 in "% of productive outs per opportunity."
http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/productive?sort=productiveOutRatio&tp=team
Interesting list of stats. Also interesting from that site - the Nats rank 28th in terms of number of opportunities for productive outs. Do they struggle to get the lead-off man on base more than other teams? Just from the eye test, it seems like when Eaton or Turner do get on, they score/win, but I also realize that somewhat of a self-fulfilling argument.
Regardless, appreciate all the info here as always, so thank you Harper as well as all the other posters. I'll keep hoping that they will go on a crazy run, but more likely than not I'll settle for some decent baseball over the next two months (and at least one win in Chicago, preferably one of the games I'm at).
@Anon 12:07PM - How the hell did you even get to that page?
Time to lower the pitcher’s mound again.
Josh,
Thanks for those numbers. I also wonder with the greater emphasis on HRs in today's baseball if run variance is up across the league the last 20 years compared to the 70s and 80s when there were more small ball-based offenses.
When I talk to fans of other teams these days, they almost all complain about their teams' inability to get runs home when their teams have runners in scoring position.
Nats have now scored 40 runs in their 3 post-non-waiver-trade-deadline games so far. Not bad.
Also, Soto had another 3-walk night last night. Really good stuff for a teenager.
Seeing a bunch of sites saying DeGrom is the frontrunner for the CY this year. Aside from ERA and 0.2 advantage in WAR, how is Scherzer not running away with this thing? Especially taking into account his performance at the plate?
@PBN
If he doesn't win, I would find it similar to how Lebron doesn't win the MVP every year even though you could make a case that he should always win it.
ESPN's CY predictor has Max at the top by a decent margin, with Nola and Lester the only ones close based on a "victory bonus" from their team being top of the division. DeGrom is not in the top 10 (Doolittle is 8). There were a few exceptions, but the top starter (relievers really get shafted) has won it it more often than not.
Whether you buy the methods or not, it goes back to 2002 and is fun to look through: http://www.espn.com/mlb/features/cyyoung
Post a Comment