So how many wins really?

Barry was asked how many wins he thinks is the ceiling on the Nats this year and his answer was a non answer. 65-97, which was 10 games better, seemed to him like a big jump for a team that didn't make massive improvements. But he didn't get specific.  I will because I generally do (and I generally get it wrong).  Let's think about this step by step. 

How good were the Nats really? 

Sometimes you win 80 games because you are an 80 win team. Sometimes you win 80 games because you are a very lucky 70 win team or a very unlucky 90 win team. Knowing that doesn't matter for the season you won 80 - it happened! - but it does help you better figure out where they might be next year. 

The Nats won 55 games last year.  Pythag (based on runs allowed and scored) had them at 56. Clay Davenport's adjusted standings which tries to account for other things that may vary by luck had the Nats at 61 wins. We'll go ahead and say the Nats were really more like a 60 win team in a vacuum. 

At this point we have to adjust for the fact the Nats don't play in a vacuum, they play in the NL East. And while the schedule will be more balanced this year they still will play a larger number of games in what will likely be the best division in baseball. So let's say 58. The Nats going into the year with the same team as last year playing the same way as last year would be expected to win about 58 games.*

Are the Nats better or worse?

Baserunning. Better - if only because they'd have to be. They were worst in Fangraphs BSR stat. They didn't steal. When they did they got caught too often. They hit into way too many double plays. They didn't take as many extra bases as they should have. They did everything baserunning wise wrong. I'll stop here that this should really be on Davey who is showing constantly he is a terrible manager when it is hard to show you are a terrible manager. Ok back again. With Davey still here I'm not making the Nats out to do this well but a little better should be possible. A win better?

Fielding. We talked about it the other day. The should be better. It's not a given, especially if Abrams can't stop booting balls, but it should improve simply by getting Soto out of the OF and Garcia out of short. We're understanding how impt defense is even if it's hard to track and predict. Maybe 2-3 wins better here?

Relief pitching.  Hmmm. The Nats relief pitching was decidedly middle of the road last year. In fact it was 15th in ERA. Compared to starting pitching and hitting that was great but why would we assume it would improve. I really like Harvey as you know, but one pitcher isn't going to make that big a difference, especially one that was here most of last year. Finnegan was their best non-Harvey reliever and he'll get more innings. Edwards won't be as lucky but more Mason Thompson is good. The back end could collapse into complete trash but for now I'm thinking they are equally as average. Which is good but doesn't move the needle win wise.

Starting Pitching. It's more "could it be worse" then is it better as they were verging on historically bad for most of the year. they ended with a 5.97 ERA. I think it will be better because of these reasons (1) Corbin can't be worse. In fact he was more of a 5.00 ERA guy that got unlucky. That's terrible for your 1 but in the case of keeping the Nats down from a 6 ERA it matters (2) Williams is ok. (3) Gore is better than Fedde and looked decent before being hurt. Hell if he can do what he did last year that would be a big improvement for the Nats. Gray is a question mark. He has talent but he actually pitched worse than his stats suggest (lots of solo shots). 5th spot should be a nightmare again. But again so it doesn't make things worse.  So they should pitch better to the tune of several wins. Maybe even 5. Again this is just going from historically terrible to merely around worst in the league. 

Hitting. Here's your problem. The Nats were bad last year but they had some bright spots. Soto of course but Josh Bell hit like a beast (.301 with a .500 SLG) and Meneses surprised everyone to hit even better than that (.325 with a .550+ SLG) post trades.  That's three STAR level bats if for a limited time.  Where is that coming from? I suppose Meneses could be really a star but let's just say he'll be good for now. That's a drop. Soto to Dickerson? Drop. Bell to Smith? Drop. Abrams/Garcia should match Garcia/Hernandez. Robles, Thomas and Ruiz should probably just replicate, though I'd love a step up from Ruiz there isn't a definite sense that will really happen. So the only good chance for big improvement is from 3B where Candelario, who was awful but could be decent, takes over for Franco who was awful. Candelario isn't covering for these drops himself unless he's George Brett. This is going to be a worse offense costing them a couple games.

 
Spit ball it I'd say they got +8-9 from defense, baserunning and starting pitching improvements but -3-4 or so from the offense getting worse. That's a range of +4 to +6 for the team. If we start at 58 then they should be a 62-64 win team this year barring anything strange. Feels right. Let's see how Davey gets them to 51.

 

*Other things from the adjusted standings - Yankees were really good (though injuries might hold them down again this year). Rangers really should have made at least a little noise so deGrom signing might actually do something. Padres aren't the Dodgers.