I haven't called the Nats season yet. It's just too early to do something like that, although the general historical examples brought out means we aren't actually far from that point. Only a couple teams started as bad as the Nats and still made the playoffs. The Nats are trying to be the next and to do that they need to win. A lot. Soon.
The examples are last years Dodgers (16-26) and the 2005 Astros (15-30), but you'll notice that both of those records encompass fewer games than the Nats have played. At this point their comebacks had started to various degrees. The Dodgers going into game 55 had gone 10-3 to pull to a respectable 25-29, and you could more easily see them coming back. The Astros had gone a mediocre 5-4 to bring their record to 20-34 (worse than the Nats now!), slowly turning the ship around. They hadn't made that move yet but were a only couple games from a 5 game win streak that would be followed by an 18-5 run that would put the season right. The Nationals, at 19-31 a few days ago, might have started something, and you won't know until you are a dozen games in and able to look back at it.
What we want to know right now is when will the Nats seasons officially be over? Or, if a miracle happens, officially be turned around? The Nats schedule sets up fairly well. Nats only have a 2 game set vs ATL next. A sweep or being swept is hardly telling. But then they go CIN CHW SDP CHW ARI. That's a couple of underachievers, in the Reds and Dbacks, a mediocre squad in San Diego, and a bad one in Chicago. It's probably the second weakest run in the Nats schedule when you throw in these Marlins games. So that means a stumble here, even just .500 over the next 17 games... well 8-9, and I'd throw in the towel. If they can't win now there's no reason to believe they'll pick it up after the All-Star break when the schedule gets harder again. That's easy enough. So if you want a counter - 9 losses before June 16th.
What about a turnaround? That's gotta wait until after this stretch. With a weak schedule the most likely scenario is the Nats start winning a bit more and over the next 17 games go something like 11-6, putting them at 33-38. We could see a 12-5 or 13-4 even. But with this schedule I'd be wary about getting too excited.What happens next would be the turning point. After these 17 the Nats play 7 at home (part of a homestand started with the D-backs) versus the Phillies and Braves. Dominate there 5-2, 6-1 and you could officially take whatever decent record they put up over the last 17 (say even 10-7) and plot a path forward. Sure low-end here they are... 37-41, but then comes the easiest stretch of the Nats season MIA DET MIA KC (PHI) BAL. You'd have a Nats team who, starting with this Marlins series, would have gone 18-10 going into a 17 games stretch where they'd be expect to go another 10-7 minimum. 28-17 from going into the Marlins series puts them at 47-48 and you can start thinking about surging to a Wild Card as the Nats would be one of the better teams in baseball for two months. It would still be a precarious situation but it would be conceivable. (and this is the absolute low-end of what I would consider - tick those each up a game 11-6, 6-1, 11-6 and you have the team going 31-14 since the Marlins series and sitting at 50-45 and no one would blink twice at backing that team)
Anyway so that's where I am. I'm 9 losses in these next 17 games from calling the season lost. We're probably* 25 games from even thinking about whether the season is truly turned around and probably waiting for the 17 games after that to truly buy into it. Certainly at least the All-Star Break.
*Because of course like a 15-0 run would do it. We have to leave open the improbable, but not impossible scenarios
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
Excellent, thanks for this breakdown Harper.
Based on your overall impression, what percentage do you put on the Nats at least getting back into playoff consideration? 10%? 20%? 25%?
Obviously, this is very non-scientific and vague, but am curious what you think the probability of at least getting to one point of time in the 2019 season where we can legit say, 'The Nats have a decent chance of making the playoffs'
GCX - that would depend on where you set the line. But say... .500 by ASB? I'd say it's about a 50/50 shot given no more injuries. That's "Can't dismiss" level. If you want "in the mix" by trade deadline I'd drop it down to like 15%.
I think it's roughly 50/50 that the Nats will be within 3 games of the NL East lead at some point this season.
Looking at BaseRuns is informative. The Phillies simply have not played like a good team (where "good" is defined as "meaningfully better than .500"). Their run differential is +27, which is okay for this time of year but not great. If you look at BaseRuns, however, it shows that they've benefited enormously from good sequencing (i.e., getting better performance offensively and pitching-wise than you would expect when people are on base). Take out sequencing, and the Phillies should be below .500 (BaseRuns has them pegged at 25-28). The Nats have had poor sequencing luck, but they have not had as much bad luck as the Phillies have had good luck. Really, in the NL East, only the Braves have played well and deserve their record. The Mets have been mediocre and a bit lucky; the Phillies have been mediocre and extremely lucky; the Nats have been mediocre and rather unlucky.
If things revert to what you would expect - based just on how the teams have played so far - the Phillies and Mets will play slightly below .500 ball going forward and the Braves will be a bit better and take over the division. The Nats have played like a .500 team too, so in order to make up ground they have to play better. It helps that the team furthest in front of them is not the one you would expect to play the best. But still, the Nats need to play better to make up ground, and need to hope the Braves don't go on a run of some kind.
I agree with the .500 by the break necessity. But competition level notwithstanding, I still don't see how this team has a realistic chance of achieving even your small goals, since there's no real evidence the bullpen will perform better. If anything, the new try-outs have been every bit as bad and there are NO other reinforcements coming without DFA's or trades. I guess if you believe that Hellickson can be a adequate enough starter to send Fedde back to the pen, that would be a little bit of something. Not much though.
Even if Keutchel and Kimbrel end up in the division, it will take them a few weeks to be ready and shouldn't affect things much immediately. Base runs only reinforces my feeling that Atlanta is probably the best team in the division, also with the easiest path to getting better by trade as well, given all those pitchers. If they don't push in some chips, I would expect their fans to go on the warpath. As for Philly, they do have one particular player likely due to start playing better...
I love your unintentional optimism Harper. I'm an old school, want-to-see-Scherzer-retire-a-Nat and go to the HoF guy. But after yet another BP meltdown yesterday, the remainder of this season could unfairly skew his final numbers. (Not necessarily effecting his HoF chances of course). So, why do that to the guy? Especially when it's obvious the Lerner's and Rizzo aren't in it for this season. They are leaving Davey and the starters flapping in the breeze like worn out American flags disrespecting the team and the fan base.
Either show some class and let Scherzer go to a contender after the ASB and get what you can for him. (Acknowledging tacitly trading Max makes us worse for the next two to three years)...
OR
#FireRizzo yesterday! If we are going to rebuild then start with some fresh perspective and breath new life and optimism into the whole enterprise.
Harper - There is some general thought after yesterdays game that that Zim's defense at 1B is a great improvement over Adam's and that it would have turned yesterday from a L to a W and a 4 game winning streak going into Atlanta. My understanding from you is that both are just bad... Interested to hear your thoughts.
Secondly - Do you buy into Fedde's recent performance?
Thirdly - Is there a conceivable trade scenario where we shore up the 4 spot in the rotation + sign Kimbrel or sign Kimbrel and Keuchel on 2 year deals at a high dollar amount to support the run? With a desperate Rizzo, maybe something gets done...
Overall I think your numbers to support keeping the team alive is impossible with our bullpen. No way we keep anything above a .500 clip with this bullpen blowing every third game....
Fedde's ERA on the season is 2.18 and this is propped up by an extremely low .237 BABIP. The low BABIP jibes with what I've seen watching Fedde's most recent starts: he's benefited from a number of well-struck balls that became outs by virtue of being hit right at fielders.
BUT, Fedde does not need to have a 2.18 ERA to be a good fifth starter. His FIP is 4.03, which is what you'd hope to get out of that spot in the rotation. His xFIP is 5.07, which suggests that Fedde has given up fewer dingers than you'd expect, and that more dingers are on the way. Most concerning about Fedde's profile is that Ks are down and BBs are up relative to his performance in the minors. Right now he's only striking out 5.23/9 (Arrieta from earlier this season territory). He's been an 8-9K/9 guy in the minors, so you'd expect the 5.23 number to tick up.
As confident as I am that Fedde won't pitch to a 2.18 ERA going forward, I am similarly confident that he's better than Jeremy Hellickson. There's nothing in his stats to suggest Hellickson doesn't completely deserve his 6.23 ERA, and I think there's no reason to expect he would perform better than the roughly 4.00 ERA we ought to expect from Fedde going forward.
If, from this point forward, Hellickson pitches more innings for the big club than Fedde and injuries are not involved, then management has made a mistake.
Fedde will crash, no doubt, his BB/9 rate is still too high (3.5) and his K/9 rate is already way below previous years + minors (5.23 instead of 8-9 range). The question is whether the result will be worse than Anibal and Hellickson, and the answer is probably Expect-To-Lose-This-Game-Regardless.
This list is basically "who do I want pitching at any given moment" in descending order:
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2019&month=0&season1=2019&ind=0&team=24&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=8,d
Yeah, irrespective of schedule, I'd need to see the bullpen pitch much better. Even in winning 3 of 4 from the Marlins, the bullpen still looks like a dumpster fire, mixed with tire fire and wrapped in s clusterf***. I mean, these guys are bad and there doesn't appear to be any help in sight unless one of the recent lottery ticket signings works out. This team is going nowhere. Start the firesale now.
I actually hope the team continues to play so badly that there’s no way the Lerners can avoid 1) firing our incompetent stuttering doofus manager as soon as possible, and 2) allowing Rizzo to go into sell mode so we start the rebuilding we need to start.
The team playing just well enough to trick the Lerners into thinking they’re going somewhere, causing us to completely botch the trade deadline again for a second year in a row, would’ve the absolute worst possible thing that could happen.
I don't see how the Nats get to .500 by trading deadline:
#FireRizzo Puhleaze!
Hey Froggy, you know why the Nats keep getting picked to win the World Series every year?
Rizzo.
You know why they fail to do that?
Bad luck, injuries, bad manager(s), failure in high pressure situations, etc.
Not Rizzo.
I'm with Mr. T, Rizzo isn't the problem, he's caught between underperformers (and to his credit, he says that is on him)and poor ownership.
#keeprizzo
I am firmly in the #KeepRizzo camp. The track record speaks for itself. The Nats have been one of baseball's most successful regular season teams this decade (per # of wins). They also had three separate playoff series ('12, '16, and '17) where the team had a chance to advance at home, but didn't. Not his fault.
Rizzo's goal every year is to build a 90-win team. Both Harper and the 'Website that shall not be named' estimated 90 wins for the Nats this year. He built the team; they didn't perform.
Remember that Rizzo wanted Bud Black for manager. Dusty was his backup choice, and then he wanted to stick with him after Dusty produced back-to-back winning seasons. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to sign Kimbrel, but was told he couldn't exceed the luxury tax this season.
Question: what are the chances that Stras continues to pitch well, and chooses to opt out after this year?
I read something from the offseason saying something like he'd like to stay with the team as long as they plan to keep winning. So I wonder if the Nats go into a full rebuild, that leads him to opt out?
Froggy, I've gone through the trouble listing Rizzo's good moves. Can you list his bad ones? The one's where we paid good money and it didn't work out? I know there's a few, just curious which ones you think they are?
Are you certain that getting below the luxury tax is on Rizzo and not the owners holding the sack of money?
*Deleted due to too many typos!
Mr T. You forgot the other excuses: "the sun was in my eyes, and this glove is too big."
Essentially, you are making excuses for causation of results, which aren't untrue. They just aren't provable.
There are however, evidence of direct correlation to Rizzo's personnel decisions and subsequent results. I would venture to say he has not made net positive WAR personnel acquisitions when needed. All one has to do is look at the last 7-8 years of his work. Trading Daniel Murphy is an example. So he was average to below defensively at 2B, but no question he was stellar as a hitter and could play 1B. What do we have in exchange? Dozier or Difo. Ugh.
And you can't use the "bad luck, and injuries" excuse with the pen. Rizzo traded away pitchers who are head and shoulders above anyone not named Doolittle no matter what their struggles were last year.
At the end of the day the last two seasons have been about getting below the luxury tax and not doing whatever is necessary to win a championship.
Time for a change.
So Froggy, just so I'm hearing this right: Kelly, Kintzler, and Murphy. If we had those three, we'd be 8-10 games better? Murphy is hitting .224 and playing 1B. I'm no fan of Dozier, but who plays 2B then?
So its those moves, the last two years of .500 ball, and the last 7-8 years of his work (which only resulted in more wins than any other team, but no playoff wins) are all reasons for Rizzo to lose his job and have our beloved Nats spiral into irrelevance?
Sounds interesting.
Other than Papelbon, it isnt always about "paying good money and it not working out" as much as having a plan and developing talent IMO.
To quote Mike Rizzo in S.L. Price's article in the Sept. 10, 2018, issue of Sports Illustrated, “If you’re not in, you’re in the way” as if he’s the final word—even when he isn’t.
A little off topic, but how do you fire/not sign Dusty Baker as manager for 2018? The guy won 192 games in TWO seasons! Last year people were saying "2018 will be the worst Nats season but we are going to the WS with Martinez in 2019!"
At the end of the day the clubhouse is a mess because no one is leading it. I can't help but feel keeping Dusty around to manage the new kids (Robles, Soto, Kieboom, etc) would go further in these uncertain, rebuilding times.
More to follow...
It is interesting isnii it. Could it be like everyone else who has ever played the game that this guys had off seasons? We'll never know because he traded them and replaced with worse pitchers.
Also, Murphy is hitting .224 on the Rockies and Yelich is the next coming of Ted Williams on the Brewers. So, what's your point Annon?
Annon,
I keep Murphya at2B. You would take Dozier on his best day over 2018 Murphy? How many games has Dozier won with his defense at 2B? For almost three seasons Murphy's presence in the lineup helps batters hitting before and after him. Those are the intangibles that make up chemistry in a lineup and clubhouse. I personally believe that Murphy was the best hitting coach the Nats have ever had.
A good recap for context for the Rizzo Koolaid drinkers:
"What Happened to the Nationals? How Did One of Baseball’s Best Teams Fall So Far?"
https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/09/05/washington-nationals-bryce-harper-dave-martinez
@Froggy: I don't understand how trading Murphy was a bad move. He was in the last year of his contract, and the team was going nowhere last summer. Getting some value for him at all was a good move by Rizzo. (And if you're going to argue that we should have given Murph the QO or extended him...right now he's sporting a 71 wRC+ and -0.2 fWAR in Colorado, which is actually worse than Zim and Adams...and actually Dozier as well (72 fWAR). Rizzo cut bait on Murphy at the right time.
Trading Kelley and Kintzler were questionable moves from a baseball perspective, yes, but the public story around both at the time was that they were being shipped out for non-baseball clubhouse reasons. That's as much on Martinez for not doing his job *in* that clubhouse as it is on Rizzo (particularly since Rizzo apparently wanted to keep Dusty).
Trading Treinen, yeah, it's hard watching him pitch at a superstar level in Oakland, but he WAS our closer in 2017 and he exploded in a Rosenthal-esque fireball. If he'd pitched like Oakland Treinen, we'd never have had to make a move to trade for Doolittle in the first place. Felipe-formerly-Riviero-now-Vazquez in Pittsburgh is similar: it hurts to have lost him, but we needed a WIN NOW closer in 2016, and Melancon did everything we could have asked for us when we got him.
Trading for the Washington Strangler, now there was a genuinely bad bullpen move by Rizzo--not because of Papelbon himself being bad (he wasn't, not until the next year), but because everybody in the fanbase knew Storen was a headcase who would melt down instantly at being yoinked from the closer's role and somehow Rizzo did not. Craig Stammen going to SD has also hurt.
And overall, Rizzo's bullpen assembly style has been poor. This year, for example, Sipp, Barraclough, Miller, Suero, and Grace have all been unpredictably AWFUL, but their expected outcome was to be "eh, not bad" guys with ERAs around 3.50-4.50. Glover's expected outcome was to be injured for at least a chunk of the season. He could--and should--have assembled better pieces.
Rizzo has moved a lot of young pitching over the years--Milone, Peacock, Cole, Luzardo, Treinen, Vazquez, Lopez, Giolito, Dunning, etc.--but he's largely done it in service of "win now" moves. One can argue the decisions on an individual basis or a process basis, but it's clear that there IS a process involved--that he considers young pitching more replaceable than young hitting and considers pitching prospects to be his favorite trade chips to spend.
One thing I do think Rizzo genuinely does wrong is that he's too much in love with the gamble: high-risk, high-reward moves such as his love for drafting pitchers coming off Tommy John. Sometimes they work out (signing Murphy, for example, gambling that his postseason outburst with the Mets was the sign of a genuine breakout). Sometimes they don't (Dozier, Rosenthal, not trading Harper--though that might also have been ownership's fault). I think that there's a little too much "if this works out, we're going to be great!" in Rizzo's roster construction and too little "if this doesn't work out, we're still going to be okay/have a Plan B."
@Froggy: I totally agree re: Kintzler and Kelly. DFA-ing and trading useful pieces for nothing were dumb, impulsive moves, designed to shock the troops into playing better. Losing them led to more pressure on Madson, who imploded toward the end of the year.
That said: I wasn't giving a "list of excuses." I mean, okay they're excuses, but they're excuses for why THE PLAYERS aren't performing up to their anticipated levels, which has nothing to do with Rizzo. Obviously there was a lot of risk with some signings, and it's pretty bad luck that they've all been terrible. (Plenty of less-risky signings have been terrible too, e.g. Bearclaw.) There were certainly other choices out there that would have been safer. But those options would have cost more money, and pushed the Lerners over the luxury threshold, and most billionaires don't take kindly to taxes, luxury or otherwise. Anyway, how many articles were written in November and December--by national media--saying that the Nats had won the offseason, regardless of what would happen with Bryce? Rizzo did the best he could with what he was given.
Also, your love for Dusty is not helping your argument. Rizzo wanted to keep him.
Dezo, I think we are in almost complete agreement, and your thorough recap makes my point about Rizzo better than I did. Specifically, Kintzler had a 1.88 ERA when traded. That was an entirely impetuous, reactionary, borderline childish move on Rizzo's part when Kintzler had the balls to confront him F2F and say he didn't speak to the Yahoo reporter, Rizzo basically called him a liar to his face. Kintzler was a bigger Nan than me because I woul have open hand slapped Rizzo like a bitch if he had done that to me.
As for Murphy, what did we get by trading the hottest hitter in our lineup at the deadline last year? Nothing. We shed, what, $1.4 million dollars? (I'm probably wrong on that figure, but you get my point).
And, we traded him at the point when the Nats needed all the help they could use even though the chances of making the playoffs were slim.
Also, baseball players thrive on routine, ritual, and familiarity. The 'groove' isn't just a swing, it's also about the elements of security I knowing you don't have to press to prove you're worth because other guys have your back or can pick up the slack when you're in a rut.
Somewhat of a non-sequitter question, but how much baseball has Rizzo played?
I wasn't in love with Dusty per se. He did have a tendency to leave guys on the mound a bit too long and has a reputation (not sure it is deserved necessarily) for cooking guys arms in the second half of the season. But, he did have proven performance.
It was the WAY he handled the Dusty situation that was disturbing (keeping him dangling for 9 days and telling him to renew his lease on his apartment) then cutting him away that speaks to Rizzo's character. Remember, this is the same guy who was all Holier than thou with players "not being on-board" with the party line.
At the end of the day for me it's time for a house cleaning. If we are going to suck, and rebuild then let's do it with some fresh leadership.
With the exception of Corbin (big plus) and Suzuki/Gomes (I'd say they are okay not great), Rizzo's "great off-season" has not produced in-season results. Dozier-Rosenthal-general BP construction and 4th/5th starters are all whiffs. So a minus off-season, with hindsight.
I never liked signing Dozier because of age/trend/cost. There were numerous decent 2Bs available for less than half the cost (wanted Schoop or Dietrich). I also wanted to keep Holland (less than half the $ of Rosenthal). I desperately wanted Charlie Morton over Sanchez or Hellickson (and Morton's wife reportedly has family nearby so might have really wanted to come here). The 2B thing is a real head-scratcher. You just don't take a flyer on a 32 y.o. middle infielder in decline. You just don't. And not for that money.
I agree that saying goodbye to Murphy was a no-brainer. Watching him run last year was painful--reminded me of how I was still running two years post-knee surgery. I hit an inside the park HR in a work softball game only because no one seemed able to run down the ball. My wide turns were comical. My knee was never the same post-surgery, which looks like Murph's situation, too. I think we underestimate how lucky the Murphy signing was--rejected by Phillips, we get our second choice and he has the two best years of his career in his '30s. Very lucky, I'd say. I think losing Murphy last year was one of the first dominoes to fall and may have partially contributed to Bryce's issues.
"It was the WAY he handled the Dusty situation"
Did you read the article you linked to?
“With ownership comes proprietorship,” Baker says of Lerner family clout in baseball decisions. “As Bob Dylan sings, ‘Everybody must serve somebody.’ That’s the truth, ain’t it? … Either something changed, or Riz didn’t have the power to do what he wanted to do.”
There, that explains everything:
Dusty reaches back to a 1979 Bob Dylan song, "Gotta Serve Somebody," conflates it with the chorus ("Everybody must get stoned!") from Dylan's 1966 "Rainy Day Women #12 & #35" and comes up with . . . "Everybody must serve somebody."
Doobie Baker.
Look Rizzo has made some good moves and isn't a bad GM, however, if I owned the team, I'd move on because his way of doing things doesn't seem likely to ever produce a World Series, simple as that. Rizzo believes in building a great starting rotation, lineup without holes, if not spectacular in any part and piecing together a bullpen. This has been his approach year in and year out. However, in my opinion, he has outright failed at the draft (outside of the obvious #1's in Harper, Stras and Rendon) and he's failed at hiring a strong developmental staff. In today's MLB, even if you're the Yankees, Red Sox and the Dodgers, this is how you win championships.
Even if Bud Black was your first choice for manager, Dusty Baker shouldn't have been on the list. The guy is renown for being a terrible in-game and playoff manager, which is exactly what the Nats needed. Likewise with Dave Martinez, the guy had been passed over for every big league managing job for the 5 previous years before the Nats hired him. A win-now team and he was the best you could do? Even on a budget? Not to mention, bungling the process and losing Mike Maddux? If Martinez had Maddux as a pitching coach, I think the Nats make the playoffs last year.
So all of this to say that yes, Rizzo has made some good moves, especially as it concerns trades, and yes, whoever they hire could be worse. However, if you want to win World Series you don't hire Dusty Baker and you move on from Mike Rizzo.
Mr.T, yes I read it. I think Dusty is taking the high road with that quote because he wants to work in MLB in some capacity again. You never bad-mouth a previous employer in public. Same reason Kintzler danced around it as well. The point that your missing is if Rizzo can't convince ownership that 192 wins in two seasons isn't good enough to not to fuck with what ain't broken, then he is weak at best as the president and GM of the club.
It's just occurred to me that Mike Rizzo is the Dusty Baker of GM's. For the most part, he's great in the regular season, but he's not the guy to get you over the top and isn't built for the playoffs.
JW said all there needs to be said on Rizzo. Froggy, listing players you miss from 2018 or guys you hate in 2019 misses the mark and is of little impact when we look at the bulk of his resume as Nats GM. Expiring contracts on middle relief pitchers and a broken Daniel Murphy are not unrecoverable. Same as we'll move on from Rosenthal and Dozier.
What we can't recover from? Years of in-house guys not panning out or being traded away. I brought this up about giving up the farm for relief pitchers. We should have some better results with developing our own Mark Melancon's.
Its this: draft picks (other than Bryce, Stras, Rendon) not panning out and mediocre players leaving only to become studs elsewhere. That is a sign of poor player development and that is on Rizzo. These picks are not finished products, so I don't have a problem with WHO he picks, but what comes of that player once he becomes an Auburn Doubleday. Rizzo's lack of success in player development is what should get him fired, if he deserves to be fired at all.
One word of caution: you fire Rizzo, how can anyone on this blog be so sure his replacement will be the guy to build this team into a contender? Or turn this organization into the joke from whence we came? We tell the Lerners to spend, luxury cap be damned. I agree - it's not my money. You want to get someone else to rebuild the organization the way YOU want it? Just be careful what you wish for.
To the crew: Thanks for letting me vent and do the blogging equivalent of bashing some water coolers with Mike Rizzo's face on them in the dugout with my bat. Last comment on this, I think the Nationals need another Stan Kasten like President of baseball operations, and a separate GM. Having Rizzo do both is where I think power consolidation and miopic decision making went awry.
It's official: JWLumley has written the single stupidest thing ever written on this blog. Yes, I too am surprised that ssln no longer has the title, but he's probably responsible for the nine other things that comprise the top ten.
"If Martinez had Maddux as a pitching coach, I think the Nats make the playoffs last year." WHAT THE ACTUAL F*CK??? Does a real, living, breathing human being actually believe this? The Nats finished the season EIGHT games behind the Braves. EIGHT GAMES!!! You think Mike Maddux is worth EIGHT F*CKING GAMES in the standings?!??!! The same Mike Maddux that was on the open market, available to be hired by any single team, and was almost certainly hired for $500k or less per season.
Ole PBN, I wasn't waxing nostalgic about players I "missed" in 2018, or "hating" any 2019 played either. I was merely giving my opinion on what I've seen with Rizzo's body of work. I've seen enough sample size to conclude / agree with JW Lumley: Rizzo isn't going to bring the Nats a WS berth doing what he has been doing. I'm convinced.
To your last point, that's exactly why there needs to be a separate President of Operations with a focus in development ala the Dodgers, Card, or A's.
Annon, where do you work in the organization? Grab a handle and join the Blue Check Mark club.
I would really really love for those advocating the position "Rizzo is a good regular season GM but can't win in the playoffs" to defend their position with actual facts and not suppositions. Are there other "good playoff GMs"? Is Andrew Friedman a "good playoff GM" because he's gotten to the world series a number of times or a "bad playoff GM" because he's never won it? Is Brian Cashman a better "playoff GM" than Billy Beane because his teams have won the world series (although only one time in the last 18 seasons)? Or is Brian Cashman a better "playoff GM" than Billy Beane because he operates with 4x the payroll?
To be clear, I am not defending Rizzo, just criticizing the absurdity of the idea that there is such a thing as a "good playoff GM" that's different from a "good regular season GM."
Anon, whatever, you can't even identify yourself. You forget that the Nationals sold off pieces in July and August that would have made them better at season's end. So to answer your strawman argument. No I don't think he was worth 8 games, but I think DM cost them 3-6 games due to bullpen mismanagement that I think Maddux could've helped with. Then, in July instead of selling pieces, they'd have added and made the playoffs. Not everything happens in a vacuum dumbass.
Mr. Rizzo, thanks for commenting on this humble blog. You don't have to remain anonymous though. Even still, I'm happy to play along. The difference in regular season GM's and postseason is in their approach. Rizzo builds teams to win in the regular season, most of the time, instead of building teams that can win in October like Theo Epstein. It comes down to roster construction and if you could comprehend what you read, I'd point you what I wrote earlier and what has been repeatedly written about Rizzo through the years, however, since you can't I'll reiterate: Rizzo builds teams based on starting pitching, which is what won championships in the 90's. However, if you look at the past few postseasons, it's apparent that not all of these teams had great rotations. However, most of them, had great bullpens, which Rizzo de-prioritizes. Now, certainly, there's an element to the playoffs that's a crapshoot, but you don't build teams backwards and keep hiring piss-poor in game tactical managers and expect to win in the playoffs.
"The point that your [sic] missing is if Rizzo can't convince ownership that 192 wins in two seasons isn't good enough to not to fuck with what ain't broken, then he is weak at best as the president and GM of the club."
So Rizzo wanted to keep Dusty...but the Lerners wanted to fire him...and firing him was Rizzo's fault because he couldn't convince the Lerners not to fire him? Do I have that right?
I wish I had a billion dollars, so I could do stupid things and then blame my employees for not stopping me from doing them.
"However, if you look at the past few postseasons, it's apparent that not all of these teams had great rotations. However, most of them, had great bullpens, which Rizzo de-prioritizes."
The hits keep on coming.
The last five teams to win the World Series had bullpens ranked 12th, 8th, 22nd, 3rd, and 24th in all of MLB for an average ranking of 13.8.
The last five teams to win the World Series had starting rotations ranked 10th, 7th, 2nd, 21st and 25th for an average ranking of 13.
Keeping making stuff up that's really really easy to debunk in five minutes of analysis. It's fun.
If we keep Rizzo, at worst we'll be .500, and at best we'll get knocked out of the first round.
If we fire Rizzo, we'll toil in the cellar of the division or be that 1/30 team to win the WS.
Tough gamble there, but as Rizzo himself likes to do... go for it, I guess?
If you can trace player development issues to him - maybe its worth a change. If not, strip him of his President of Baseball Ops title, but keep him on board.
The difficult thing about being a "good playoff GM" is it relies on either luck or a bunch of intangibles that can't be measured (to me, those are the same thing). To have a good playoff roster construction that isn't also a good regular season roster construction as far as actual measurable numbers boils down to whether you have a slightly better across-the-board rotation or better top 3 or 4 starters.
Even with a roster that is built for the playoffs, what are the odds of winning a 5-game series against a top-tier opponent, even one that on paper isn't as good? It should be greater than 50-50 but not guaranteed. What were the in-game odds for game 5 of the 2012 series? Rizzo built a team that had a 90+% chance of advancing until the wheels inexplicable came off late in the last game.
I am completely for keeping Rizzo. This team was terrible when he came aboard, and is now a very successful team. That’s all thanks to Rizzo. People are quick to blame a guy for failure, but for some reason it takes years for a GM to be labeled a great one. We have one of the best. And I got news for you folks, THIS season isn’t a failure yet. This season ain’t over. There’s a lot of ball left to be played and I would wager a good bet that the Nats are close come the end of the season. Not saying I think they’ll win the division, but I bet they make this a pretty good fight. I expect them to finish no worse than 2 out of the NL East. Hopefully it’s enough for a WC. Maybe not. But I think they have some fight in em. This lineup is finally on the field as constructed. With the exception of Dozier, which was a swing and a miss, and maybe Robles, they are now hitting as expected. I bet by the All Star Break they are a whole lot closer than most expect. If they haven’t cut the division lead in half by the ASB then I will concede failure. But until then, I think they still have a good shot at this.
Yes Mr T. you have that right.
As President of Baseball Operations and General Manager of the Washington Nationals Mr Rizzo should have some skin in this situation. Honestly, I don't know who wanted to "keep Dusty" nor do I think he was the Godsend for the club. But the whole situation was handled poorly. Something tells me a Stan Kasten would have been classier.
PS: sorry about the typos...
"Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!"
https://youtu.be/V8lT1o0sDwI
Not to change the subject, but yesterday and today is everyone’s annual reminder that Dave should replace Bob in the booth. Permanently.
@Ole PBN - Absolutely. I like FP, but Bob brings nothing to the table.
@Anon - Fun with cherry-picked statistics! A team's bullpen ranking over the course of a year does not measure how good their bullpen was/is for the playoffs. In the playoffs, teams don't use their 5th starter or a good chunk of their bullpen, they use their 7th, 8th and 9th inning guys and specialists. Averaging out those rankings is even more absurd. The Red Sox last year ran Kimbrel out there and in the playoffs David Price. 2017 Astros had 3 guys with an ERA+ over 135. 2016 Cubs who supposedly had a bad bullpen, 3 guys with an ERA+ over 140 and that was before they added Aroldis Chapman.
But if Dave joins FP, then we have to listen to that Joe Buckalike guy replace him on the radio. No thanks.
There was a game a few years ago where Charlie and Dave were ranting about the tolls in Delaware on I-95, how they charge you $12 when you're in the state for 8 minutes. I love those guys.
Pete is no Dave and Bob is no Dave. Need more Dave! However, I guess i'm with Mr. T in that the current config is probably better than most alternatives.
No way, Ole PBN. Gotta keep Dave on the radio. I'm biased, though, since I listen to far more games than I watch.
I do support replacing Bob, though.
Perhaps a simulcast? ala Vin Scully?
Bob is a nice man, but he can call someone else's games.
JWL - you're the one that made the claim that success in the playoffs requires prioritizing the bullpen over the rotation. Anon 12:47 isn't cherrypicking statistics (though I don't think looking at ranks is the best way to answer this question, I'm not sure what is). But you haven't supported your claim at all. Identifying a few good relievers and writing their names - that's cherrypicking!
You may be right, but you haven't even supported your point with evidence, much less proven it.
Post a Comment