We're almost to the "3 starts" time frame where we'll start looking at everyone (probably Monday rather than tomorrow just to throw in a couple extra days) individually but we can start to form team thoughts already and one thing is incredibly clear about this Nats team.
The Nats don't have power.
As of last night the Nats have a respectable 110 hits, which ranks 11th in the league. Batting average shows it's not a fluke of having like 3 games more than everyone as they are 13th in that. But the Nats aren't winning because so many of these hits are singles.
86 (2nd in the league) of the Nats hits are singles. That's 78.2% of all their hits. That's way too many.
In thinking about it in a game situation, in a good game your team might get 10 hits. If the Nats do that, you'd expect maybe 2 of them to be XBH hits. That's not going to score you runs when you throw that out across 9 innings. Especially when you are dead last in the easiest way to score, the home run. The Nats have 5 homers, tied with 5 players and one behind Pete Alonso. Unsurprisingly, the Nats are 27th in runs scored.
There may not be any way around this specifically. This is not a team made to homer. Arguably it's two greatest reliable HR threats are Candelario and Thomas, two guys aiming to hit 15-20 in a given year. Meneses could be the way out of it, he did hit 13 in 56 games last year, but it's still up in the air what kind of major league hitter he actually is. The rest are either do not have power or have power but are not clear major league talents (Adams, Garrett).
That doesn't mean the Nats can't be effective. There's no reason those singles can't be a few doubles and with so many there are chances to score runs. But you have to optimize what you do well. The Nats put a a decent number on base through hits. What if they
Also walk a lot - overwhelmed the opposition with baserunners?
Fine idea, but we talked about how the Nats are also not a walking team. They have been middle of the road so far (literally 15th in walks) and the addition of the actually patient Alex Call into the line-up helps, but it'll be an uphill battle to stay even in the middle based on the team's histories.
Run a lot - turn those singles into quasi-doubles?
Again - good thinking but the Nats have become incredibly cautious and fairly unsuccesful on the basepaths as Davey's tenure extends. They current have 4 SBs and 4 caught stealings. They are among the worst baserunning teams in the league, meaning they are likely not going first to third, second to home succesfully nearly enough. Going for that extra base is hurting the team not helping.
Well at least stay out of double plays so those guys aren't wiped out.
Nope they are among the league leaders!
Hit and run? Bunt more?
They have had more sacrifices than any other team (3 - so not a ton). This is an interesting solution. In general bunting is bad because a runner on first with none out usually leads to more runs than a runner on second with one out.* But for a team with absolutely no power and questionable patience? I mean the numbers work out that hoping for one single with two outs is better than hoping for two singles given three outs...
I mean I don't like it but for this team? Maybe? I'd have to run the numbers to see where the break even point on power is that makes bunting consistently worthwhile. It's gotta be pretty low.
The Nats need to score more runs, but they aren't going to hit more homers, they aren't good at trying to get extra bases during normal baserunning. So maybe they just need to chip away. Single, bunt, get another single. Hit and run. Hit and run. Hit and run.
This isn't a plan to score a lot of runs, but to maximize what this Nats team can do, which is still probably below average. Now do I trust Davey to pick the right moments to make these calls? Not at all.
*I think the expectation on a single run goes up a little but multiple runs go down a lot which is why it's an acceptable move when you only need one run - say tied going into your last inning at home.
4 comments:
"I think the expectation on a single run goes up a little but multiple runs go down a lot which is why it's an acceptable move when you only need one run - say tied going into your last inning at home."
No, the expectation of scoring a single run also goes down. Tango's run expectancy matrix has the total number of runs scored in that inning declining from 0.859 to 0.664 and the chances of any runs scoring going from 0.416 to 0.397. (Those are numbers from 2010-2015; the last time it was a breakeven play in terms of the expectation of scoring a single run in his dataset is 1950-1968, when the odds of scoring at least one run are unchanged between runner at first no out and runner at second, one out.)
Anon - huh. I can quibble about how approach/situation changes might adjust the number (bunting over a fast pinch runner when you are looking to score 1 is different than an oaf hitting a double with one out in the third but they are both in the RE measures) but it's not going to do more than tweak it. My takeaway is seeing the difference and given my "last home at bat, tie game, man gets to first with no out" set-up it's likely you'd see a one game difference over the course of what? 2-3 years? Essentially it's a wash.
BUT this is a side point. I'm still curious for a team that rarely hits XBH or walks or steals or takes the extra base does bunting make sense? We know it doesn't for the average team. That's all the RE work. We also know at the extreme it definitely would. (getting two singles before you get two outs is more likely than getting three singles before you get three outs since getting outs is more likely than getting singles). So moving from the extreme at what point do things change? There are four sliders here in terms of parameters to change so there isn't one singular answer but the question would be - what about for the parameters we enter that match the Nats?
We can either simulate it or we can limit the RE input to teams similar to the Nats then run the data. My guess is it's still probably better not to bunt (outs are huge) but the Nats particular characteristics make me want to prove that.
It might be a bit situational, too. The worst possible outcome with a runner on first is a double play. If the batter hits into a lot of them, you might be more tempted to bunt, especially if there’s a good contact hitter on deck. Or if the batter is a bad bunter, but has a bit of pop, maybe not.
Maybe at some point, the statistics reflected those situations because managers took them more into account. But at some point, do managers just follow the statistics regardless, and by doing that, skew them?
Good analysis of a serious problem for 2023 -- but a problem that will undoubtedly be temporary.
Nobody wins with singles today. As appreciated as sabermetrics are for arguments sake, this discussion is like asking how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
The 2023 Nats are -- and will likely remain -- scrappy singles hitters. Even if DM was a strong tactician, the game management levers available to get runners around (hit-and-run, bunting, base stealing, etc) would not change things much. Especially with this teams skill set.
The Nats may lose as many one-run games in April as they lost all year in 2022.
The good news is that other winning-team needs are falling into place. More important long term needs. The ability of starters to soak up innings, for example. Small sample size yes, but its good to see that several of the young studs that Rizzo brought aboard appear to be MLB starters. Second is fielding --- excellent ball handlers in at least five positions. These two factors will do much to make the Nats competitive, and there are other areas where they are showing improvement. It does seem that a batting coach is imparting something --- more than the team was getting over the last few years.
Its entertaining baseball. Or more entertaining than it was in 2020,21 or 22 --- so far.
Power bats are coming --- from the minors or via trade. Happy to watch the kids NOW and wait.
Post a Comment