No, I'm not talking in the NL East! We all know the answer to that! I'm talking about 5th starter!
Lest you think we are talking about Jake Irvin here - we are not. Trevor Williams struggles in 2024 and continued issues in Spring this year have made him the odd man out. But the Nats also brought in Zack Davies to give him a try. The results have been bad all around. Williams has looked terrible. Davies just as bad.
For me the choice is pretty clear. It's Williams. You brought him in to do it. You don't rely on ST stats. You slot him in and see what happens. As bad as Williams was last year Davies was worse, at least in results. He had a 7.00 ERA over 82 innings in 18 starts (that's under 5 IP a start - which Williams also was but he was closer to 5!). They were both extremely hittable (10.6 H/9 and 11/1 H/9 for Davies and Williams respectively). Davies struck out more (7.9 to 6.9) but still wasn't good at it. Williams walked fewer (3.3 to 4.3) but still wasn't good at it. Williams gave up far more homers (2.1 to Davies 1.1... which isn't bad!) Anyway it's two poor choices but if you have to go with one, ride the horse you came in on or something like that.
But this just underscores how bad it is for the Nats. These are two pitchers who should be no ones #5. Michael Lorenzen, a perfectly reasonable arm likely to give you 4.00-4.50 ERA (though maybe only for half a season) was signed for a song. That's what the Nats should have done for various reasons (no depth a starter, don't tax a average pen, no idea what the rotation with 3 young guys - one prone to injury, and one older one on the way out are going to do innings wise) but they didn't. For a few million they chose to make the team likely much worse.
We can pick apart the positional decisions (Nick Senzel? Really still? That's not a joke?) but the prospect of prospects lends an air of sense to "wait and see". We can imagine a smart plan taking lumps now to pay off later. But the pitching decisions blow that all up. This isn't a concerted plan to get kids opportunities. There are no kids worth it on the mound, certainly not the multiple ones needed to cover this rotation. It's a plan to be cheap while they aren't winning. Simple as that.
5 comments:
What's wrong with Jake Irvin as the #5 starter. He was fine last year. A lot better than Williams.
I think the point is that Jake Irvin has become the #4 (in place of Williams). Now Wiliams and Davies are sort of battling it out for the #5 in what can be considered a race to the bottom.
Recommend "wild and improbable predictions" in this morning's MLB.com. Alongside, Dodgers don't make the play-offers is Corbin finds himself, is an all-star, and a possible trade deadline candidate. https://www.mlb.com/news/bold-predictions-for-2024-mlb-season?partnerId=it-20240322-9366392-mlb-1-A&utm_id=it-20240322-9366392-mlb-1-A&lctg=90275203
I don't think Harper is wrong on this exactly, but I do think this just isn't a very big deal. Lorenzen is a better bet than Williams, but not by much.
FG's depth charts (which averages across a few projections) has Williams at 0.5 WAR and Lorenzen at 0.7. (On the other hand, he's a full half run better on ERA and FIP, which should work out to more than a fifth of a win over 110 IP, right? I'm not entirely sure what's happening there.)
But even if it is a half-win difference in their median performance (which is the biggest gap in projections, via Zips), it's still entirely within the error bands and could entirely be offset by other considerations. Maybe Willaims has already agreed to happily go to the pen whenever Cavalli is ready. Maybe there are other clubhouse relationships that the team thinks are working. Maybe our internal analytics is a little bit more optimistic on Williams. Who knows. But it's close enough that you don't have to reach too far for a good explanation.
And even if it is just the desire to scrimp over a few million, which I 100% agree with Harper would be a bad thing, I can't get myself all that upset about it. If we had Lorenzen on a two year deal, and Williams was available as a cheap, bounce back FA, I think a lot of the same folks would be agitating to sign Williams and DFA Lorenzen.
I wanted to sign an SP this offseason too, but I want someone who was going to make the playoff rotation next year and the year after. Those guys didn't want to come here for what Rizzo was willing to pay. And in a lot of those cases, you can see why the fit wasn't perfect. That said, it's a real shame that none of them worked out. We're going to be under a lot of pressure to win an auction or two next offseason. (Well, hopefully. Always a chance that the rebuild just collapses, of course.)
Kind of upset in the "be better to be better" way. Yeah in a vacuum Lorenzen likely won't matter but it shows a sense of caring about how the Nats do, that they might improve, that isn't there now. Basically the team is saying "No reason to pay attention to the roster until the kids come up" but don't want fans saying "No reason to pay attention to the team until the kids come up" which is where I'd be.
The “playoff rotation next year?”
Think you’re a season or two ahead of yourself.
Post a Comment