Ed Note - Whoops. I knew the Reds in the WC sounded funny. Rewritten given the Nats the worse odds they deserve
We can all agree 2019 was a magical season. The Nats started like crap thanks in good part to a bunch of injuries, but got healthy and went on a run that would find them safely in the playoffs with over a week to go. The Nats and their fans would love it if 2021 could follow that path.
Of course we're already into the "recovery" phase of 2019. You all remember 19-31 is where that began. In 2021 there was a slightly earlier run, followed by a crash, that set them up with a slightly better record after 50 games. 21-29. Let's see how it progressed
After 60
- 2019 : 27-33
- 2021 : 26-34
After 70
- 2019 : 32-38
- 2021 : 34-36
After 80
- 2019 : 40-40
- 2021 : 40-40
At 89 games
- 2019 : 47-42
- 2021 : 42-47
So up until around game 82 2019 and 2021 matched up pretty well. At that point though 2019 took off with a little 9-1 run. They'd have another average run until game 116 where they'd stand at a decent 61-55. By game 135 they'd be a great 77-58. So if you want to set points in the schedule for demarcation that'd probably be it. The Nats this year might be able to get to 61-55 but the 2019 Nats will smoke them after that.
But really it's about context, internal and external. In 2019 after finishing out that 9-1 run the Nats were 49-42. But the division leader was 56-37 Atlanta, well ahead by 6 games and they'd never catch them. In 2021 the division leader is a mere 47-40 currently. In 2019 the Nats had already gotten to WC1 status, WC2 being the 49-43 Cubs and the first team out the 48-45 Brewers. In 2021 WC2 is 53-40 San Diego a harder target than the 2019 division leading Braves.
So what does that all mean? It means that the Nats in 2019 were in GREAT shape by now in terms of the WC situation. They couldn't just hold ground but as the WC1 team with a 2 game lead over the last team out and a team in between they also lead they had a cushion. (In the end they could have finished 38-33 and still made the playoffs). In this year they are in TERRIBLE shape. They are 9 out of the playoffs with 5 teams in between to climb past.
It also means that the division is a tough haul as well. You might think it would be easier. The 2021 Mets are not as good as the 2019 Braves. But again it's all relative. The 2021 Nats are not as good as the 2019 Nats. The 2019 Nats trailed the Braves by 6 games after 91 games. The 2021 Nats could very well trail the Mets by more given the post ASB matchups. The 2019 Nats never caught the Braves even with FOURTEEN head to head games remaining. The 2021 Nats "only" have 11 against the Mets.
Also the 2019 Nats were almost completely healthy by now. Rendon had been back since early May, Soto and Turner mid May and they'd have played every game since coming back. Sanchez missed a start in May but hadn't since and Stras and Corbin had hit every start. Only Max, just starting an injury run that would limit him to one start from mid July to late August, was out. That's big but if that's your only thing - and it was - you can get past that.
By contrast, the 2021 Nats have Schwarber and Strasburg and Gomes still out with no current timetable for return (we hopefully will get updates in the next couple of days). They are also worse - but you know that. That's why they are 42-47.
To summarize, 2021
- The Nats are as far away from the division lead
- The Nats are in a much worse WC position, basically out of it.
- The Nats are far less likely to make a sustained run.
- IF though they do make a sustained run the Mets are far less likely than the 2019 Braves to match them
That last point is the bright spot and what they have to hang on.
So what am I looking for? I'm looking for, over the next couple days how healthy the Nats are. The healthier the better. I'm looking over the next week, how far out the Nats fall / how close they can get. And from that I'm evaluating their chances daily to decide whether to sell, hold, or buy. Currently it's a hold. What would buy look like? Something like after July 25th, everyone back Nats 49-49, Mets 50-46. What would sell look like? No one back, Nats 45-53, Mets 53-43. It probably won't end up as far in either direction so the choice won't be clear but still a choice is going to have to be made. Currently "soft sell" looks mostly likely but if the injuries clear up then "soft buy". To the IL reports
Good H2H comparison between this season and 2019. It seemed like the Nats were just about to do something special, only 2 games back from the Mets, when Turner got hurt, then Schwarber, then Avila, then Gomes, and they go 2-9 to finish the pre-ASB part of the schedule.
ReplyDeleteI am assuming that they will be “soft sell”, a la 2018. In some ways, this season feels more like 2018 than 2019. Instead of ‘Trade Harper?’ it’s ‘Trade Max?’
What exactly would a "soft sell" and/or a "soft buy" look like and, more importantly, expect to accomplish?
ReplyDeleteAre the Nats, assuming a return to full health, really a "soft buy" or two away from contention without a Mets' breakdown?
As for the "soft sell?" The Nats would likely replace the departed players by promoting some of their minor league "prospects." And only then will fans have a sense of how utterly abysmal the Nats' minor league system truly is.
If I were to do some reckless prognosticating--look at me! I'm clairvoyant today!--it would be that Rizzo, having squeezed every bit of juice out of the organization, flees after next season. His replacement will then begin the "hard sell," Trea Turner probably the first to go. (The Nats never extend hitters--see Bryce and Rendon--only pitchers, so enjoy Soto while you can.)
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall, as one of Minnesota's Hall-of-Famers once put it.
I think soft sell is easier to imagine than soft buy. Think trading decent parts like Harrison or Castro or maybe even Gomes to contenders for decent prospects that might pay off. Not much lost, not much gained except a bit of additional future hope. Soft buy (really any buy) is harder because we have nothing meaningful with which to buy except a little spare cash.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the prediction, the other factor is the significant schedule difficulty difference between the Mets and Nats. The recent 2-9 can be chalked up to injuries but just as easily could be chalked up to the Dodgers/Padres/Giants gauntlet, some of which the Mets still have to run. And the Braves without Acuna become much less of a threat. And the Phillies just seem as flawed as the Nats so that H2H is down to some luck most likely.
Harper, what were the 2H strength of schedule differences among the contenders back in 2019? Anything to learn from that?
@SM: I don't know about how Harper defines it, but I would suggest that a "soft buy" involves doing something that doesn't incur a heavy cost in future prospects. Essentially, "hard" versus "soft" for both sell and buy involves a question of "how committed are you to what you're doing?" For a hard buy, you'd be all-in; you really believe in the present core of the team and you do whatever it takes to push it over the edge for the next 1-3 years and let the future take care of itself. Pretend you're the Brewers making the Christian Yelich trade. For a hard sell, you're convinced that the team is a pile of garbage and you're willing to move the best possible assets, up to and including Soto, because you believe there's no way anything good is going to come of the next five years.
ReplyDeleteWhereas for a "soft" buy, you don't compromise your future assets/prospects. Maybe you take a flier at Kris Bryant, because he's a pure rental, but you don't get into a bidding war with a contender, and you definitely don't look at anybody who's tied up long-term. You're trying to move the needle, but not change the long-term characteristics of the team. Ditto for a "soft" sell, but from the point of view of the MLB roster instead of the prospects--you move out your expiring assets (yeah, like Max, unfortunately), maybe packaging multiples for a bigger return if possible, but you don't mess with the core of next year's team so you can try to reload.
Yeah I have to say I'm still optimistic about winning the division ASSUMING the Nats get some health back. The NL East isn't great so anyone (besides Miami) could come out ahead. All it takes for it to turn into a crapshoot is DeGrom or Lindor or Alonso or some combination of lesser players to get injured.
ReplyDeleteAs for what the Nats should do, it's either hold or buy. It's really just not worth selling unless you're going to do a MAJOR sale, and I don't think Rizzo's ready to do that just yet
I think this is a case where the in-the-weeds way that @Harper does analysis doesn't quite fit. The nats were badly hurt until they were 19-31. Then they got healthy and went 86-43 for the next 129 games including the playoffs. That's not just "getting hot" that's a case where the best team in the game stayed good.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't that team. They have been healthy up until June and weren't getting anywhere, then Schwarber went insane, then he got hurt. I don't see much reason to think they're going to do better than win 60% of their games from here on out, and that's given the soft schedule.
I think a soft sell is the way to go. *IF* you can build a team that wins 75 games this year and next and assemble talent for a run starting in 2023, go for it.
My biggest concern with a soft cell (Harrison, Castro, et al) is that you're very unlikely to get anything back of value. I mean, maybe a Ryne Harper-level contributor in 2 years if you're lucky. And that's if it works.
ReplyDeleteSM - Dezo sums it up well. Specfically a soft sell would be trading off guys who have no future with the team. Castro, Hand, Gomes, Harrison, maybe Hudson for lottery tickets and organization depth. In terms of what you are accomplishing it would be hoping to get 2 years down the road a couple of role players or some extra cash you can turn around for something else. Think 2018 - where they traded Shawn Kelly for Int'l cash then traded int'l cash for Kyle Barraclough in the off season. He was no good but you see the idea.
ReplyDeleteA soft buy would be sort of what they did in 2019 - signing Rodney as a FA, trading nothing for Daniel Hudson, Roenis Elias, and Hunter Strickland, signing Asdrubal Cabrera and Greg Holland as a FA. These tend to do better than your soft sells imo bc you are bringing in a handful of major league talent and chances one of them hits as usable for 2 months. As long as you aren't relying on them you should be fine. This was a little bit stronger than the usual soft buy but I think it's close enough.
Oh the "soft buy" idea is "Make yourself more competitive but sacrifice nothing" It's not focused on getting the most wins but the most wins at no extra organizational cost. Its a "we don't REALLY believe we're going to compete but we're close enough it could fall in our laps and we'd be stupid to trade a chance at the playoffs now for whatever the soft sell would get us"
ReplyDelete@Harper - if we're way out, why not hard sell instead of soft sell - aka sell Max? We're not far from a top 5/10 pick in that case if we ship Max (would LOVE to resign him after the season), I imagine you could get some needle moving pieces for an historically bad farm system, especially if we ate a little bit of his remaining contract for the all-in teams.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I prefer Corbin comes back strong and Stras is healthy, and I'd rather compete if it's feasible (47-48 wins). But soft-sell seems like a move you'd make if our farm system was middle of the pack and we had room to maneuver.
Sorry, Harper and Dezo, for being oblique. I understand the distinctions and implications of "soft sell" and "soft buy." My questions, though, were rhetorical.
ReplyDeleteWhat I see--and sure, I may be way off--is an active roster that cannot be substantially improved to the point of manoeuvering into any kind of contention with either a "soft buy" or theoretically, a "hard buy." ("Theoretically" because the Nats don't have the capital for a "hard buy.") Simply put, this just isn't a good team.
Squinting at 2019 and making out a kind of second-half, parallel resurrection in 2021 is illusory. For one, who on the 2021 roster is an adequate replacement for 2019's Rendon, Eaton, Kendrick or even MAT? Bring back Cabrera? Okay, but he ain't 2019 Cabrera . . . which raises another issue: this isn't a young team. It's a team prone to the fatigue, aches, pulls, sprains, strains and soft tissue injuries that older players are heir to. The number of Nats on the IL this season is a harbinger, not happenstance.
I'll stop here, except to admit that I think @Kevin Rusch has put it more succinctly than I have. Maybe I got lost in the same weeds as golfballs and Harper.
I think the Nationals should sell hard because thinking this is a playoff team now or in the immediate future is delusional.
ReplyDeleteEverything the Nats say to excuse their position in the standings, the Mets can also say. The Nats have injuries. So do the Mets. Strasburg is out. So is Syndergaard and Carrasco. The Nats offense hasn't clicked. The Mets offense is the 2nd worst in baseball and yet they sit in 1st place. The Mets are better than the Nats and all they have to do to run away with the division is put an offense on the field that isn't terrible. The Mets avg about 3.76 runs per game. If the Mets improve to just 4 runs a game, which would still be in the bottom 1/3 of the league, they become a better than .600 team.
With Alonso, Smith and Linder hitting their groove after slow first halves, with McNeil and Conforto and Carrasco returning, with a rich new owner willing to get what he needs to go the distance, I just don't see a scenario where the Nats can outpace the Mets short of deGrom going down for a length of time.
The Nats have Scherzer. They can get at least one, may two blue chippers for him. I say pull that trigger and trade off anyone else not named Soto. The Nats had a good run and got a ring during it. Don't be the Phillies and pass up a chance to rebuild.
@Anon, have you looked at the recent deadline deals for rentals? No way you get a blue chip prospect for Scherzer anymore. This isn't 2015 where you can trade David Price for an org's #1 prospect. Best bet is to send him off to the Rays or Giants with cash and hope you can get one of their lower tier top prospects (someone in the mlb top 100 but not necessarily top 50 prospect list)
ReplyDeleteIN 2019, the last full season:
ReplyDeleteThe Diamondbacks received, among other players, Corbin Martin, now their #7 prospect for Zach Grenike.
The Ranger received Kolby Allard, the Braves #10 prospect for Chris Martin. Allard is now in the majors with a 3.69 ERA.
The Blue Jays #4 prospect is Simeon Woods Richardson. They got him from the Mets for Marcus Stroman.
Scherzer is better than any of these guys. He'll get you something which is better than keeping him and finishing below .500. The Yankees are the team to target. They need SP and they're desperate.
Why does everyone want to sell Max. We will got nothing of any value for Max and it all but gatuntees that we won't be able to sign him next year. Even if Max is no longer MAX, he could still very well be a useful part of this team next year and the year after. We have been over this, selling Max gets you nothing.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 4:30 - We talked about this in an older blog post http://natsbaseball.blogspot.com/2021/05/back-for-max.html
ReplyDeleteThe Grienke trade is a good example. But let's understand the D-backs have a good, not great system and this guy is 7th, which probably puts him in the 150-200 range probably closer to the 200 given his age. That's a maybe part-time major leaguer and his stats show that.
The Martin deal is interesting - I wasn't looking at relievers. The thing there is you had a team in playoff contention with a GREAT system and a glut of starting pitching talent. Allard dropped from their #1 starting pitching prospect to #6 in a year (and was still about a 100 guy - they were SO stacked). It was a perfect match-up for a team to get something better than is usually given up. There's no team like this this year - no team goes 10 deep in the Top 100 and most of the teams with more than 5 even are teams unlikely to deal. Any other teams 10th best guy is going to be closer to 200 than 100. Hell, as we saw that with the D-backs and they are pretty good.
The Stroman deal isn't comparable - he had a second year coming.